wmi 



RL 




a2&^§£^sS&^£3gg2 HI '. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 
*5K G\ 



©tqnjngtp jp,. 

Shelf. ~£&Z. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



Behind the Scenes 



SKETCHES FfiOM REAL LIFE, 



BY A PASTOR. 






^ ^S. 



"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" — I Thess. v. 21. 



M 




CINCINNATI, O.: 

G.W. Lasher, Publisher. 

1883. 



$>% 






Entered according to the Act of Congress in the year 1882, by 
F. M. IAMS, c^<^ 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 



PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. 

The following sketches were first published in the 
Journal and Messenger and immediately excited 
unusual interest. From all parts of the country — 
from ministers and laymen, from the learned and the 
unlearned — began to come calls for their publication in 
a more permanent form. Nothing that had appeared 
for years, on the baptismal question, had produced 
such an impression. The style of the author is 
direct and incisive; everything is clear and carries 
conviction. The sketches detail personal experiences 
and deal with phases of the question not usually 
presented in other works. The argument is illus- 
trated by facts coming directly under the author's 
observation, and is made clear to the ordinary in- 
tellect. The author is the esteemed pastor of the 
Baptist Church at Mansfield, Ohio ; his reputation 
among his brethren is unquestioned, and, morally, 
no man in the State stands higher. His ability as a 
writer is fully vindicated in the following pages. 

The demand for the republication has increased 
from week to week since the completion of the series 
in November last, and it is because he believes that 
this book is better adapted to the ordinary reader 
than any other with which he is acquainted, and be- 
cause he wants to send it abroad to exert the strongest 
possible influence for the cause of truth that the 
publisher has purchased of the author the copyright, 
and now puts forth the sketches in this attractive 
form. 

Cincinnati, January 15, 1883. 
(Hi) 



AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 



These sketches are not drafts upon the imagina- 
tion. They are simple narratives of actual incidents 
in the experience of the writer together with such re- 
flections and arguments as seemed to him pertinent 
and appropriate. There is in them no attempt at 
fine writing. If the style is plain, compact and 
earnest, so was the somewhat unique experience that 
gave it birth. A man who has walked amid the 
flames of a furnace may be excused, perhaps, if his 
account of the adventure lacks the genial aimlessness 
of an amusing fiction. 

But however strong the desire to make the truth 
of God evident to the reader of these pages, the 
author is conscious of none other than the kindest 
feelings toward those whose views and practices he 
is obliged to condemn. He has written, not to de- 
nounce nor to offend, but to convince, and if possible, 
to win very dear brethren. His only desire is to 
induce Christian brethren to walk together in that 
unity so delightful and so enduring; the unity of 
obedience to Christ as King. This is the only unity 
of any real value. The unity of indifference, now so 
popular in many quarters, is not born of a consuming 
love of the truth — nor does it tend to promote the 
(iv) 



AUTHOR S PREFACE. V 

truth. "The wisdom that is from above is first pure, 
then peaceable"— peaceable through the truth, not 
at the expense of truth. Such wisdom is from God, 
enthrones God, honors him above all else, and lifts 
the soul into the serene atmosphere of divine peace. 

That these pages are free from faults and blemishes 
the author dare not hope. That they treat the subject 
exhaustively he does not claim. But that they treat 
it with fairness and Christian candor he feels quite 
assured. 

In the confident hope that they will prove helpful 
to earnest, inquiring minds, and that God will gra- 
ciously use them to promote the "truth as it is in 
Jesus," I send them forth, praying that the blessing 
of God may rest upon every reader. 

F. M. I A MS. 



CONTENTS. 



No. I. " Only a Dedication," 7 

No. 2. "Vot's de Good of It?" .... 18 

No. 3. "Let Me Alone," 32 

No. 4. Lint on the Nib, ..... 45 

No. 5. "Valid Baptism," 59 

No. 6. My Resolution, . . . . . 73 
No. 7. A Presbyterian Prophecy, . . . .86 

No. 8. Those German Scholars, .... 103 

No. 9. "A Grand Book," 116 

No. 10. Letting Providence Decide, . . . 131 

No. 11. A Puzzled Preacher, 144 

No. 12. " What can you Plead ?" . . . . 158 
No. 13. "I Never Could Understand," . . .191 

No. 14. The Final Test, 214 



(vi) 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 



NUMBER I. 



" Its only a Dedication." 

In the autumn of 185- I accepted the unani- 
mous call of the Congregational Church in the 

village of T . I was then only a licentiate. 

but the next spring, after due examination by a 
Council called by the church, I was solemnly 
ordained to the full work of the gospel ministry. 
I entered upon the sacred duties of the holy call- 
ing, not without many misgivings respecting my 
ability to discharge them properly, and yet with 
a joyous and earnest consecration of heart, in- 
tellect and life to the great work. 

A son of the grand old University of B , I 

naturally carried with me into the sacred desk 
something of the vigorous, indomitable spirit of 

(7) 



8 , BEHIND THE SCENES. 

my dear old Alma Mater. I was an earnest 
student of books rather than of men, and of ideas 
rather than books. Nor did this produce a drift 
of thought in the direction of the visionary, but 
rather the reverse. My intense desire to do good 
anchored me to the practical, while my profound 
reverence for Bible truth made me an earnest 
student of doctrines. As the result, my preach- 
ing was at once plain, direct, argumentative and 
practical. My dear people were constantly 
drawn closer to me, and I heartily reciprocated 
their confidence and affection, and we soon be- 
came almost glued, as it were, into one harmoni- 
ous, inseparable body. 

We were enthusiastic Congregationalists. Hop- 
kins, Bellamy and Dwight were our oracles, and 
Plymouth Rock, once pressed by the sacred feet 
of the immaculate old Puritans, was our beloved 
blarney-stone, and I suppose we, half uncon- 
sciously, pitied those poor, unfortunate churches 
which have no Plymouth Rock to fall back upon, 
nor any May Flower to boast of. 

From the first I had frequent occasion to 
baptize infants, and I always did it properly, 
cheerfully and reverently, and to the edification 
of all concerned in it. 

Thus matters wore a pleasant aspect, and as 
time moved on, life seemed one long, cloudless, 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 9 

balmy June day, laden with the aroma of the 
sweetest flowers, and enlivened with inspiring 
harmonies. 

But there came a change. In the progress of 
my Bible study I soon found myself disturbed 
by grave doubts respecting the scripturalness of 
infant baptism. I saw clearly that the baptism 
of believers was enjoined by our Lord, and that 
the practice of the apostles accorded with that 
injunction. 

But that Christ required the baptism of babes, 
or that the apostles practiced such baptism, was 
not so clear. I tried to put away my doubts, 
and sometimes I succeeHed for a short time, but 
they would not stay put away. Often, when I 
least expected it, they would return in full force, 
and give me no little trouble. At length I began 
to look into our usual defenses of the practice a 
little more closely, and I was at once surprised, 
and not a little perplexed, at the evident and 
numerous weaknesses in them. This greatly in- 
creased my gathering doubts; and, as if to add 
to my difficulties — though she knew nothing of 
them — a good sister presented her young child 
for baptism. I was in a most painful dilemma. 
I could not well refuse to baptize the babe — and 
yet I did not dare to baptize it. By refusing to 
baptize it I would probably offend and grieve 



IO BEHIND THE SCENES. 

the entire church; but on the other hand, by 
baptizing it I might offend and grieve my Master, 
the great Head of the Church. For a few mo- 
ments I did not know what to do ; there seemed 
to be no way out of the difficulty. But present- 
ly a happy thought came to my relief. I told 
the mother of the child privately that I had late- 
ly come to have some doubts about infant bap- 
tism, and that I desired her to delay the baptism 
of her babe until the next communion season (a 
period of two months), that I might have time 
to examine the matter more fully. I also re- 
quested her to say nothing about my doubts to 
any one. These requests she readily granted, 
and the baptism of the babe was postponed. 

During the next two months I studied infant 
baptism with great diligence, but with very little 
success. I could not quite make up my mind 
either way, and as the next communion season 
was at hand, I was obliged to ask that sister for 
another postponement of two months. This she 
granted, and I went on with the investigation. 
But I found my doubts increasing rapidly, and 
at the next communion I told her I did not dare 
baptize her babe then, and I desired another 
postponement, which she readily granted. Con- 
tinuing my examination of the subject, I now 
became fully convinced, to my great dismay, 



BEHIND THE SCENES. II 

that infant baptism has no warrant in the Word 
of God. But what could I do ? If I gave up 
infant baptism, I must aiso give up the work of 
the ministry, to which I firmly believed God had 
called me, or I must leave my people and be- 
come a Baptist. I could not leave the ministry. 
I must continue to preach the gospel, for that 
duty was very clear and very urgent. But if I 
rejected infant baptism, I could not remain a 
Congregational minister. For, although we 
boasted our liberality, and allowed the greatest 
diversity of views among our members, we were 
very exacting with our ministers. No man could 
long be a minister among us, if he was known 
to reject infant baptism or sprinkling. If I gave 
up infant baptism, therefore, I must leave my 
church and go to the Baptists. But I could not 
do that, for, in my opinion, they were a narrow, 
bigoted people at the best, and I hated their 
horrible close communion. I was now in very 
great distress. What to do I did not know. 

Three things were becoming very clear to me : 
I could not continue the practice of infant bap- 
tism, for it was not scriptural; rejecting it, I 
could not remain in the ministry in a Congrega- 
tional Church. In any event, I could not be a 
Baptist. It was also evident that I must soon 
do something decisive. I had secured another 



12 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

postponement of the baptism of that babe, and 
if he was ever to have the benefit of infant bap- 
tism, he must be baptked soon. 

I now remembered having heard infant bap- 
tism defended as a pious act of dedication — an 
act in which the parents and the church unitedly 
presented the child to God, covenanting to bring 
him up in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lord. This arrested my attention and impress- 
ed me favorably. In common with my brethren, 
I had already come to look upon adult baptism 
as chiefly a solemn self-dedication of the bap- 
tized one to the service of God. I had been 
taught that this dedication was indeed the only 
essential thing in baptism. This put the whole 
question before me in a new light. It no longer 
appeared so much a question of baptism as a 
pious act of dedication. I knew that, practi- 
cally, all pedobaptists treat infant baptism as a 
nullity, if it be not in more mature years fully 
adopted and confirmed as his own act, by the 
one to whom it has been administered. And 
here, evidently, was the true explanation of that 
fact. They regarded the infant baptism not as 
a baptism, but as a dedication — to become a bap- 
tism only when accepted as such by the grown-up 
child. This is a beautiful and flexible arrange- 
ment. I apply the water to the child in the 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 3 

name of the Trinity; yet I do not baptize it, 
but only dedicate it. In all true baptism there 
must be the intelligent assent of the subject. 
But the infant does not and can not give such 
assent; and therefore, while he is dedicated to 
God in the solemn formula of baptism, he is not 
baptized. An essential element — his own assent 
— is lacking. When, in after years, he gives that 
assent, the church will for the first time treat 
him as really baptized. Should he refuse such 
assent, the church would refuse to regard him 
as baptized. 

It is plain, then, that I do not baptize him. 
I only dedicate him, and he afterward takes that 
dedication and makes it a baptism. The dedica- 
tion is my act, and the baptism is his act. If the 
dedication is proper I am all right, and if the 
baptism is wrong it is his fault. 

That this conclusion is correct must be con- 
ceded by every pedobaptist. For the ceremony 
of confirmation is the concluding act of infant 
baptism — that act which completes it and makes 
it baptism — if anything does. Until it receives 
confirmation, the child is treated by the church 
as unbaptized. The Lord's Supper and all other 
church privileges are denied it, but at and after 
confirmation they are at once accorded to it. 
The only possible defense the church can set up 



14 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

for her conduct in the matter is, that the con- 
firmation completes the baptism — makes it valid 
— and thus entitles the child to all the privileges 
of a baptized person. Either the child was bap- 
tized by, or in confirmation, or, having been 
baptized before, it was basely and systematically 
robbed of its most sacred religious rights by the 
church. The truth is, that confirmation is vir- 
tually a confession that an intelligent personal 
assent is an indispensable element of baptism. 
It is true this confession overturns infant bap- 
tism, by recognizing an element in baptism which 
is impossible to all infants. But the confession 
is a true and healthy one for all that. 

Here I found a door of hope. I could not 
baptize an infant ; but I could and would dedi- 
cate it ; and if, in after years, the infant chose 
to convert the dedication into a baptism, that 
would not be my fault. Accordingly at our 
next communion service, I told my church, that 
I could no longer consent to baptize infants, 
but that I was entirely willing to dedicate them 
to God. After stating my new views briefly, I 
told the church that, if they could agree with 
me to regard the service not as a baptism, but 
simply as a dedication, we could still go on to- 
gether; but if not, we must separate. I invited 
any one who might desire to express dissent to 



BEHIND THE SCENES. I 5 

do so at once. I paused, but no one spoke a 
single word. Then, accepting their silence as a 
token of unanimous assent to my plan, I pro- 
ceeded to dedicate that long postponed babe, 
using the old baptismal service — water, words, 
and all — not omitting a single thing. I said, " I 
baptize thee," etc., all the time meaning, I ded- 
icate thee. This was certainly a very singular 
proceeding in many respects, and I have often 
wondered at it myself, but I saw nothing im- 
proper in it at that time. Indeed, I felt very 
devout and happy, and my people seemed to 
feel so too — which only indicates how unsafe it 
is to take our feelings as a criterion of duty. 

I am perfectly sure, now, that I acted consci- 
entiously in the whole matter ; but the trouble 
was with my conscience. It was honest and 
active, but it was not enlightened. I verily be- 
lieved that I was doing God service, and I re- 
garded myself as really a person of some con- 
siderable ability and shrewdness, since I had got 
out of such an exceedingly tight spot in a way 
so ingenious and creditable. Still, as I was not 
without an occasional fear lest, after all, it might 
not be exactly the right thing, I refrained from 
boasting, contenting myself with a little private 
rejoicing, that, after all, I could remain with my 
dear people. And so for some years I went on 



1 6 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

dedicating the babes, often wincing not a little 
at the stormy doubts which persisted in gather- 
ing about me, more and more as time advanced, 
and which did not cease their assaults until I 
ceased to say, "It's only a dedication." 

Indeed, I felt very devout and happy, and 
my pe6ple seemed to feel so too— which only 
indicates how unsafe it is to take our feelings as 
a criterion of duty. 

And yet our feelings are not to be ignored or 
despised. They have their legitimate uses — uses 
beautiful and beneficent. They are the "juices 
of life," if the expression may be permitted, 
converting otherwise dry and dreary wastes into 
fertile fields, full of springing buds and ripening 
fruits. They are the chief motive power in mul- 
titudes of human hearts and lives, and, it may 
be, an inseparable factor in all right moral action. 

But our feelings, while they are grand servants, 
helping us in a thousand ways, are miserable 
guides. 

The truth is, they have no eyes — they are 
blind — and unaided by the mind, they are quite 
as apt to go in a wrong direction as in the way 
of right. If one has a mistaken idea of duty, 
and lives up to that idea, he will feel happy 
over it until he discovers his mistake. And if 
that man makes feeling his test of duty and of 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 17 

right, he may go on many years in positive 
wrong-doing without knowing it ; or in the utter 
and even contemptuous neglect of urgent duty 
without so much as once suspecting it. 

Nor is it enough that we be conscientious. 
We may be very conscientious, and, at the same 
time, be very far from right. The treacherous 
Thug is conscientious, religiously so, in his foul 
work of assassination. Saul of Tarsus was a 
conscientious persecutor of the Church of God. 
Doubtless, the grim, judges of the Inquisition 
were conscientious. It is not enough to say, 
• ' I have the approval of my conscience " in doing 
this or that. The Word of God is the supreme 
rule of right, and we are safe only when feeling 
and conscience are conformed to that divine rule. 

I am perfectly sure, now, that I acted consci- 
entiously in the whole matter; but the trouble 
was with my conscience. 



1 8 BEHIND THE SCENES. 



NUMBER II. 



"To pe sure you can; and if you can't, vofs de 
good of it V 

One day, while pastor of the church in the 

village of T , I was walking in the country, 

at a distance of several miles from home. As 
I was passing a plain, neat farm-house, the door 
opened and a woman came out and hailed me. 
She was the farmer's wife, a tidy German woman, 
whom I had met not long before at a country 
wedding. 

Coming toward the gate, she said : " Pees you 

de minister at T ?" I confessed that I was. 

Then she asked anxiously, "Does you paptize 
papies?" I acknowledged that I was in the 
habit of doing so. Then she came to business 
at once in these words: "Veil, den, I vants you 
to come right in, and paptize my dree leetle 
vims/" I told her how glad I would be to 
comply with her request, were it proper to do 
so. I then carefully explained the nature of the 
ceremony ; that it was a covenant between the 
parents of the children and the church, in which 



BEHIND THE SCENES. I9 

they, together, gave the children to the Lord, 
and agreed to train them up "in the nurture and 
admonition of the Lord;" whence it was neces- 
sary that it should be observed in the presence 
of the church, and that at least one of the par- 
ents should be a member of the church. I in- 
vited her to bring her children to our meeting 
in the village, to unite with the church herself, 
and then to have her little ones baptized. 

I was astonished at the effect of my quiet 
matter-of-fact words. "Ah, no," she cried, "it 
pees a long vay to de town, and ve got no team. 
It pees a long time pefore ve can come to de 
town ; and maype de poor leetle tings die, mit 
no paptism, an den dey perish shoost like de 
peasts of the field; dey got no soul, no immor- 
tality, no eternal life, 'cause dey not paptized!" 

It was a cry of anguish. All her mother heart 
seemed compressed into her poor broken words. 
Her voice was tremulous with feeling, and every 
word seemed drenched in tears. 

Evidently she was terribly in earnest, and re- 
garded the baptism of her children as a matter 
of the highest moment, involving their eternal 
destiny. It was a fearful revelation to me. I 
had read much about such distorted views of 
baptism, but they had always seemed to me so 
exaggerated and impossible that I had regarded 



20 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

them rather as the wild vagaries of crack-brained 
theorists, than as the actual convictions of men 
and women in real life. But here I was suddenly 
confronted by an earnest, misguided mother, 
pleading for baptism at my hands, to save her 
own dear babes from eternal death. Was ever 
any pagan superstition worse than that? I was 
amazed, shocked, and, for a few moments, thor- 
oughly upset. As soon as I could rally my be- 
wildered wits, I tried to convince her that she 
greatly overestimated baptism; that it had no 
such saving virtue, and that her children would 
not be lost for want of it, even if they should 
die without it. But the training and prejudices 
of a lifetime were not to be overcome in an hour. 
I could make no impression upon her citadel of 
superstition. At length, in very desperation, I 
cried out: ''Do you really think I can give your 
children immortality, eternal life, by putting a 
little water on them?" 

Her answer came swift, strong, and utterly 
confounding to all half-way pedobaptists— " To 
pe sure you can ; and if you can't, vots de good 
of it?" 

Finding that I could not change her views of 
the efficacy of baptism, I declined to baptize her 
little ones under any circumstances. 

I went home in a brown study, her bold, incisive 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 21 

and rigidly logical question — " Vofs de good of 
it?" — ringing in my ears at a fearful rate. And, 
day after k day, that same question — "Vofs de 
good of it?" — would pop up everywhere, like 
some irrepressible imp, meeting me at every turn 
— grinning at me from every nook and cranny 
— mocking at me in all possible ways — but ever 
growing bolder and more urgent and more im- 
perious. I could neither escape it, nor banish 
it, nor answer it. 

At length I reluctantly confessed myself van- 
quished, and gave up the practice of infant bap- 
tism — a practice which God has not enjoined — 
a practice which no man can defend, except by 
the false pretense that there is in it some hidden, 
saving efficacy — some secret power to save the 
soul. "Vot's de good of it?" sure enough. 
Who can tell? What is the good of it? What 
has it ever done? What of blessing has it ever 
conferred on the church, the world or the fam- 
ily? How has it ever benefited one of its un- 
conscious subjects ? It has done evil enough — 
and the evil it has done is evident enough — but 
what good has it ever done? Ask history, and 
she will point to the darkest of her many blood- 
stained pages, and tell you these are the records 
of its evil deeds. It brought the world into the 
church, unregenerate, godless, impenitent. It 



22 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

introduced into the church the men who invent- 
ed the Papacy, the men who contrived its ma- 
chinery, the men who fostered its corruptions, 
the men whose unholy ambitions developed its 
fearful power. 

It is not the child but the mother of the Pa- 
pacy. It existed before the Papacy, and its 
existence made the Papacy possible. It is the 
mother and conservator of every State Church 
on earth. It is the one thing indispensable to 
every State Church. It keeps alive all State 
Churches to-day, with all their festering cor- 
ruptions. Take it away, and Romanism would 
die in a single generation. Abolish it, and you 
abolish Episcopacy in England and Lutheranism 
in Germany. Abolish it, and you make perse- 
cution for religious opinions forever impossible 
among the professed disciples of Christ. Infant 
baptism and persecution were absolutely insep- 
arable for more than thirteen hundred years. 
Only such churches as cherished infant baptism 
have been guilty of the great sin of persecution. 
And of all those churches only one, the Meth- 
odist, can rise up and truthfully say, we have 
never persecuted. That Church "retains" infant 
baptism, but so carelessly and illogically, that it 
has never had its legitimate influence on Jier 
spirit and life. From the first, Methodism, with 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 23 

a happy inconsistency, has practically ignored 
infant baptism, while retaining it, insisting on a 
converted membership in all her classes, thus 
keeping herself, in a large measure, free from its 
debasing influences. 

The evil that infant baptism has done is writ- 
ten in- letters of blood on almost every page of 
the history of Christendom, and on myriads of 
wronged human hearts ; but the good that it has 
done is written — where? Alas, echo answers 
always and only — where ? Go through the world 
and search it out; find it if you can; measure 
it soberly by the divine Word ; weigh it in the 
scales of divine truth, and then publish it to the 
ends of the earth. 

But if you find no good, but only evil, and 
that continually; if you find many thousands, 
like that poor German mother, depending upon 
infant baptism to save their children; if you 
find scores of thousands trusting in their own 
baptism in infancy to save them ; if you find 
multitudes thus blinded groping in the dark- 
ness, and kept away from Christ by it; if you 
find it the chief prop of Romanism, of all State 
Churches, of all ecclesiastical usurpations, tyr- 
annies, persecutions and corruptions — then be 
assured it is not of God, but of antichrist, and 
that no man can be innocent in the sight of Je- 



24 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

hovah who contributes by his influence to per- 
petuate it. 

li Vofs de good of ttf" Suppose you go 
through this land proposing this same question 
in every church where infant baptism is prac- 
ticed, and note the astonishing variety of re- 
plies. 

One tells you that it is a testimony to the good- 
ness of human nature, that it certifies the holi- 
ness of infancy, and assures us that the evil 
within us is outweighed and overborne by the 
good ; but another tells you that it is a solemn 
witness to our depravity, assuming it to be so 
great that even unconscious babes imperatively 
need the washing of regeneration in the bap- 
tismal laver, to put away the corruption of orig- 
inal sin. You repeat the question, and you are 
told by one that the baptism is a recognition of 
the membership of the babe in the Church of 
Christ, by virtue of its Christian parentage ; while 
another gravely assures you that the baptism 
makes it a member of the Church of Christ, 
into which, he tells you, no one, not even the 
children of Christian parents, can enter without 
being baptized ; while still another informs you 
that the baptized babe is not in the church at 
all. 

You move on, a little confused, and repeat 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 25 

the inquiry, and one hastens to reply that the 
baptism washes away original sin; another that 
it regenerates the child, and makes him a mem- 
ber of Christ's kingdom, a subject of his grace, 
and an heir of heaven ; while another assures 
you that it has no effect whatever upon the babe, 
but expends all its force for good upon the par- 
ents and the church. 

This staggers you somewhat, but again you 
move on, in a dazed sort of way, and reverently 
ask: " Vofs the good of it?" A solemn voice 
replies, "It secures to the babe all the benefits 
of the covenant of grace;" but another voice, 
equally solemn, assures you that it is not so, 
that it has nothing to do with any sort of cove- 
nant, gracious or otherwise, but that it is a di- 
vine institution, "in the same sense that an ox- 
yoke is;" but another voice, equally solemn, 
interrupts, informing you that there is neither 
covenant nor ox-yoke about it, but an aesthetic 
and sentimental beauty, very pleasing to the 
proud and happy parents. 

This sunflower theology may puzzle you a 
little, but go on and press your problem, and 
other voices will greet you with replies far harder 
to digest. One tells you that every babe that 
dies unbaptized goes down into the pit ; that no 
human being, young or old, dying without bap- 



26 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

tism, can be saved. Another assures you that he 
rejects with loathing a doctrine so horrible ; but 
that by baptism the infant is made a partaker of 
the "covenanted mercies of God," so that his 
salvation is, in a manner, thereby assured. 

Thus the defense of infant baptism is a theo- 
logical "Tower of Babel," a veritable "confusion 
of tongues," imperiling the peace and sanity of 
every honest inquirer after the truth. Men of 
views the most contradictory practice this un- 
scriptural rite in search of benefits to the last 
degree imaginary, and for reasons the most an- 
tagonistic and irreconcilable. 

If the subject were not so grave, it would be 
very amusing to witness the deliberations of a 
great convention of learned and pious pedobap- 
tist divines, engaged in the awful task of fram- 
ing a respectable and official reply to this little, 
rustic-looking, but dangerous and monitor-like 
problem, " Vofs the good of it?" 

Long before they could agree upon a defi- 
nite answer, there would be such a ' ' Babel of 
tongues " among them that the convention would 
explode in "holy wrath," while the uncircum- 
cised spectator would also explode, but in guile- 
less merriment. 

Just imagine such a convention in session, 
engaged in the mighty deliberation. Here are 



Behind the scenes. 27 

Catholic and Episcopalian, Lutheran and Presby- 
terian, Reformed and Congregational and Meth- 
odist, conferring together about the benefits of 
a practice common to all of them. 

They are all ardent but discordant devotees 
of infant baptism. The reverend chairman states 
the question in words so brief, they might be 
defined the soul of wit: 

" My brethren — Doubtless we all love infant 
baptism dearly; it is such a blessing to the little 
dears. And we all practice it most reverently, 
as is fitting in men so reverend. But we have 
fallen on evil times. There are uneasy souls 
abroad who question its utility,- and they meet 
us at every turn with questions hard to answer. 
Pressed by them on all sides, we have met in 
this great and wise convention to discuss the 
matter freely, and, if possible, to frame a con- 
clusive and official answer to this annoying prob- 
lem, 'Vot's de good of it? Brethren, proceed." 

"Vot's de good of it?" cries the Catholic 
priest. "Why, sir, it is a saving sacrament. 
It confers salvation, and without it, the dying 
babe is certainly lost. If unbaptized, it is only 
heathen, and its dead body can not have inter- 
ment in a Catholic burying-ground, nor its soul 
admission into heaven. This is the doctrine of 
Holy Church." 



28 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

" Ah," says the Episcopalian, "you are right, 
brother Catholic. I fully agree with you, in a 
manner. Or rather — well no, I don't. Of course, 
the baptism makes the child a Christian and 
saves it, and equally of course without the bap- 
tism it is lost, and a person who is lost is only a 
heathen, and has no right to burial in a Christian 
cemetery. All that is true, as you say, and as 
I profess to believe, but it sounds harsh, and our 
people have a habit of reading and of thinking for 
themselves. For this reason I do not agree with 
you, but consider you very heterodox and super- 
stitious in this matter ; but it is all right between 
ourselves." 

"Of course," says the Lutheran, "you are 
both right, and I agree with both of you. We 
have the true Catholic doctrine in our creed, but 
our people are a little peculiar, too, and we are 
obliged, now and then, to pass a resolution in 
our Synods, denying the evident import of our 
creed on this subject, just to keep the peace in 
our Church. But I fully agree with both of you, 
and also with everybody else. It's a saving 
ordinance, but there's no real good in it." 

" Hold on," cries the Presbyterian, "you are 
all three utterly wrong, and I can nox agree with 
you at all. Infant baptism has no saving virtue 
at all, not a bit of it, and you ought to be 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 20, 

ashamed to pretend that it has. For my part, I 
hold that it makes the babe a Christian, and a 
member of the Church of Christ, and secures to 
him all the benefits of the covenant of grace. Of 
course, this amounts to the same thing as your 
doctrine, but it is not expressed in such a plain, 
gross way ; but the great difference is that my 
doctrine is true, and yours is not. But, to tell 
the whole truth, this infant baptism is a childish 
thing, at best, and I wish we were rid of it." 

"Oh, horrors!" cries the Reformed, "that is 
too bad. Infant baptism is the seal of the cove- 
nant, and its value can not be measured, for it 
makes the babe a partaker of the divine grace, 
and assures its final salvation. It is a most 
blessed institution, the hope of the Church, her 
nursery, as it were. I would not give it up for 
all the world, but, of course, it is not a saving 
ordinance. Nobody believes in saving ordinances 
except the Baptists, who fight infant baptism all 
the time, declaring there is no authority for it 
and no virtue in it." 

" Well, " says the Methodist, "if you are go- 
ing to give it to the Baptists that's all right, and 
I will help you; but as for infant baptism, Mr. 
Wesley expressly says that it washes away 
original sin, and of course we believe what he 
says. I confess that it seems to me that what- 



30 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

ever washes away original sin must save the soul; 
but then we do not hold to anything in particu- 
lar on this subject. We think it is best to baptize 
infants and run as little risk as possible. You 
all lay too much stress on it. See here, we are 
in the main agreed about infant baptism, but do 
not make its virtues too prominent, or those 
Baptists will get after us, and make it quite too 
warm for us. Just be non-committal about it. 
' Retain ' it in your churches as we do, and let 
every fellow find out 'vots de good ofitV for him- 
self" 

"For shame!" cries the Congregationalist, 
" such double-dealing is too bad. There is no 
virtue in infant baptism, none at all ; but it is 
useful, and would be a great deal more useful 
than it is, if those Baptists would only let us 
alone. It secures the benefits of the covenant 
of grace to the child, and that virtually assures 
his salvation ; but of course he would be just as 
well off without it. But it enables us to call him 
a child of the Church, and if we can make him 
believe it, we can keep him from going off with 
the Baptists. But of late our people are giving 
it up at a fearful rate, and we are likely soon to 
become just like the Baptists in this matter. I 
tell you infant baptism is a bother, and a con- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 3 1 

stant puzzle, and I almost wish we had never 
heard of it." 

Now, this may seem like a caricature at first 
glance, but the sober second thought will con- 
vince you that it is painfully true to life, and it 
absolutely does no injustice to our pedobaptist 
friends, as they will confess, if they read up their 
own authors faithfully. 

Do not turn away and say, "Oh, it is no 
matter," and then give your influence to support 
it blindly. Such conduct is unworthy a Christian 
man. If you love Christ, you love the truth, 
for he is the truth, and all truth is of him and 
from him, and every several ray of truth leads 
back to him. 

It is our business as Christians to search for 
truth as for hidden treasures, and, having found it, 
to honor it and confess it, and show it to others. 
It is truth, and truth alone, that can make us 
free from error. If you are a Baptist, let your 
Baptist light shine out brightly and widely ; and 
if you are not a Baptist, muster up a little cour- 
age and look into infant baptism for yourself, 
and do not rest satisfied until you have answered 
this crucial question, " Vofs de good of it? " 



32 BEHIND THE SCENES. 



NUMBER III. 



" Let Me Alone r 

While residing in the village of T — ■ — , hav- 
ing occasion to visit a distant city, on my way 
home I stopped over Sabbath with an old friend. 
There was a Presbyterian Church in the neigh- 
borhood, and I attended worship there. After 
delivering an able sermon to a large, intelligent 
and appreciative audience, the pastor invited 
such parents and friends as desired to have their 
children baptized to bring them forward. In 
response to that invitation several persons arose 
and approached the pulpit, carrying or leading 
children of various ages, from the babe of three 
or four weeks to the rather large child of ten or 
twelve years. 

Beginning with the younger ones, the pastor 
proceeded to administer the ordinance in the 
usual manner, and without any marked opposi- 
tion, until he reached the last one, a bright boy 
of some ten or twelve years. Several little girls 
had, indeed, exhibited much fear, but under 
strong parental influence they had finally sub- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 33 

mitted to the rite, if not reverently, at least 
tremblingly. Some little boys had exhibited 
signs of great discontent, but after a few struggles 
they had accepted the inevitable, with no more 
tokens of aversion than they might have exhibited 
if about to be vaccinated. Meantime the last 
boy in the row watched, with an interest pain- 
fully intense, every movement of minister and 
child. 

When his turn came he was almost wild with 
fear. As the tall, venerable minister approached 
him he tried to break away ; but his father held 
him so firmly he could not. Finding he must 
remain, he instantly changed his tactics, spring- 
ing forward and kicking the minister's shins with 
great vigor, crying with every kick : ' ' Let me 
alone ! Let me alone ! " His father, having a 
little girl in his right arm, found it very difficult 
to manage the boy with one hand. Meantime 
the boy contrived to plant several effective kicks 
on the ministerial shins, so effective, indeed, 
that the owner of the shins vvas glad to retreat 
out of his reach. 

Suddenly the father, with a facial expression 
not in the highest degree saintly, jerked the boy 
back several steps. The minister immediately 
advanced with all boldness, with the sacred water 
sparkling on the tips of his fingers, but just as 
3 



34 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

he was about to apply it to the boy's head, 
down went the head and up went the heels be- 
longing to it, colliding with those dear, vener- 
able shins in a most painful way, while the walls 
in the sacred edifice resounded with the cry : 
"Let me alone! Let me alone!" Again the 
prudent minister beat a hasty retreat. 

The father, a powerful man, was now thorough- 
ly aroused. With a midnight frown and a mighty 
wrench he brought that boy upon his feet. In- 
stantly the minister approached, and bending 
over (he was very tall) he managed to get some 
two or three drops of water on the devoted head 
of that belligerent boy, who, in impotent rage, 
was kicking toward his ghostly benefactor, and 
screaming his favorite scream : " Let me alone ! 
Let me alone ! ! Let me alone ! ! ! " As the last 
scream was solemnly and beautifully punctuated 
by the official Amen, which ended and confirmed 
the baptismal formula, and the minister, with a 
serene, cheerful countenance, re-entered the 
sacred desk to close the services, I felt — well, 
my feelings were considerably mixed. To be 
perfectly frank about it, I had some rather un- 
sanctified feelings just then. In the first place, 
I always did sympathize with the "under dog," 
especially when the odds against him were very 
great. My carnal nature always would rise up 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 35 

and demand fair play. Two men, and one of 
them a minister, against one poor little boy did 
seem too much, and I fear I inwardly rejoiced at 
the boy's wonderful grit. 

Another feeling was very strong upon me. I 
was, for the moment, fairly ashamed of infant bap- 
tism. "Is it possible," thought I, "that such 
an institution is of God? Is it really his will 
that children shall be forced by human authority 
to accept the badge of a Christian profession 
against their earnest protest?" However, I 
soon comforted myself with the" reflection that 
this was an exceptional case ; and I persuaded 
myself that very few ministers could be found 
willing to proceed with the baptism under similar 
circumstances. 

But, after all, let me not be unjust. Wherein 
was it really worse to baptize that boy against 
his fierce protest than to baptize the helpless, 
unconscious babe that could not protest, putting 
upon it a yoke which, in after years, may be- 
come a galling, intolerable burden ? 

All over this land, to-day, are weary hearts 
hindered from obedience to Christ, in the ordi- 
nance of baptism, by the specter of that christen- 
ing received in infancy ; in some cases, perhaps, 
at my hands. I know an earnest, devoted lady 
— a true disciple of the Master — to whom her 



36 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

baptism in infancy has been for years a source 
of deep, sorrow. She can not speak of it with' 
out tears ; yet she does not dare be baptized, 
lest in so doing she may possibly do wrong. 
And she is but one of thousands who suffer in 
the same way and for the same reason. When 
christened, they were not old enough to protest 
as that boy did, but they were every whit as 
grossly outraged as he. 

And yet, let us be just; for if infant baptism 
is indeed of God, my friend did right in baptiz- 
ing that boy, in spite of his kicks and screams. 
If God says do it, then do it we must, whether 
children are willing or unwilling. The will of 
the child and the happiness of the man are never 
to be set up against a command of God. And 
when God says do it, what right has the parent 
to say, no, you shall not do it ? Can the will of 
the parent annul the authority of God? Why 
should a minister desist from a duty which God 
enjoins, even at the bidding of the parent ? Is it 
right to obey a parent, rather than God ? Where 
has God given the parent power to set aside his 
solemn ordinances ? Or where has he authorized 
his ministers to waive the adminstration of those 
ordinances at the behest of any parent ? Echo 
answers, where ? where ? 

Protestant ministers who defend infant baptism 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 37 

as a divine institution, may well ponder these 
far-reaching questions. I have a right to say to 
them, " Gentlemen, why do you disobey God in 
this matter? If he commands you to do it, why 
do you not do it ? Some of you insist that when 
Jesus said, ' Go, teach all nations, baptizing 
them,' he meant baptizing all children, as well 
as parents. But you do not do that. The home- 
less bootblack on the street is a child, and as 
much a member of the nation, as the proud scion 
of the millionaire, yet you do not baptize him. 
Why not ? In that wretched hovel is a sweet, 
innocent babe, a daughter of poverty and woe ; 
her father is a drunken outcast, and her mother 
is an ignorant, irreligious, but almost broken- 
hearted woman. If your construction of Christ's 
words be the true one, he has commanded you 
to baptize that babe as truly as the daughter of 
your well-to-do deacon. Why have you not 
done it?" 

Now, allow me to speak plainly. Either you 
do not believe your own construction of our 
Lord's words, or you are guilty of openly con- 
temning his authority. This dilemma has just 
two horns, as you perceive, and one or the other 
you must take. Which do you prefer ? If the 
former, you are found guilty of bearing false 
witness against the Master. If the latter, you 



38 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

are convicted of rank disobedience to his com- 
mand. It matters little which one you take ; 
either one impales you. As the boy is said to 
have told the traveler respecting two very bad 
roads, "No matter, stranger, which one you 
take ; you will soon wish you had taken the 
other!" Now, gentlemen, look, this matter in 
the face squarely, and harmonize your practice 
with your creed, if you can. It will not do to 
throw the blame of a neglect of infant baptism 
on the parent. That is very commonly done, 
but without good reason. Ministers of the 
gospel are certainly commanded to baptize all 
who are proper subjects of baptism wherever 
they labor in the gospel. The command is ex- 
plicit: " Go, teach all nations, baptizing them." 
This can not mean less than that they shall baptize 
all who are proper subjects of baptism, in the 
place where they are teaching or preaching. If, 
then, infants are to be baptized; if they are 
proper subjects of baptism ; if God actually re- 
quires that they be baptized, the ministers are 
commanded by our Lord himself to baptize them, 
since they are commanded to baptize all who 
are proper subjects of baptism, and from this 
there is no escape. 

If the infant, unconscious and involuntary, is, 
indeed, a proper subject of baptism, then has the 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 39 

minister no choice in the matter ; he must bap- 
tize him, and the neglect or indifference, or even 
the opposition, of the parent, can not excuse 
him. Only such forcible interference as may 
make the baptism of the child absolutely im- 
possible to the minister, can excuse him for fail- 
ing to attend to it. Of course, it would be far 
more pleasant to have the hearty approval of 
the parent in baptizing the child ; but if that 
approval be wickedly or ignorantly withheld, 
that does not justify the minister in disobeying 
God, nor in robbing the dear little babes of what- 
ever blessing, great or small, the baptism might 
confer. The truth is, the Catholic priests seem 
to be the most consistent friends of infant bap- 
tism. Though they do not pretend that God 
requires it in his word, even indirectly, yet be- 
cause the Church requires it, and they regard 
the Church as his representative and vicegerent 
on earth, they spare no pains to enforce it, even 
invoking the aid of the State to compel the 
people to observe it. And, in this way, every 
person in a Catholic country reaps whatever 
benefit there is in it. And if God has really re- 
quired it, who can blame these men for their 
zeal ? Are they not rather to be honored and 
commended for it ? Why should God be dis- 
honored, and the dear babes be robbed of a great 



4-0 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

spiritual blessing by allowing a divine ordinance 
to fall into disuse ? 

Aye, there's the rub. Is it, after all, a divine 
institution? Many years ago a venerable minister, 
fearing I might renounce it altogether, wrote me a 
very pathetic letter, pleading for it as a divine 
institution. He insisted that God requires us to 
baptize infants, but failed to set forth any script- 
ural proof of such requirement, and then he 
grew eloquent about its benefits as " a seal of 
the covenant of grace." Yet, in less than one 
year afterward, that same minister published 
an article in the religious press, in which he re- 
joiced that the members of pedobaptist churches 
were no longer obliged to have their children 
baptized, but were at liberty to do as they 
pleased about it, neglecting it if they chose, 
without incurring the censure of their church. 
And still that minister remained an advocate of 
infant baptism. Can a Christian man really 
believe an ordinance to be of divine origin and 
still in full force, and yet rejoice that churches 
which profess to believe in it, do not censure such 
of their own members as treat it with neglect ? 

The fact is, gentle reader, infant baptism has 
nothing divine about it. God never instituted 
it, directly or indirectly. In the language of an 
eminent pedobaptist writer, ' 'Infant baptism was 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 4-t 

established neither by Christ nor the apostles." 
Superstition invented it, Romanism adopted and 
maintained it, and priestcraft continues to cherish 
it. That is the whole matter in a nutshell. It 
is neither less nor more than a churchly pre-emp- 
tion of the child. In it the church puts a mark 
on the unconscious babe by which to claim it, iu 
after years, as her own. That is all the divinity 
there is in it. The process is simple and trans- 
parent. Baptize the babe when it is wholly in 
your power, and in after years approach the 
youth and say : "Ah, my young friend, you be- 
long to us. We baptized you in infancy. You 
are a child of our church. Come home to your 
mother." 

Here and there the scheme fails — the youth 
sees through it, or deep convictions of duty 
oblige him to decide for himself, and let his 
"mother" mourn her unrequited love; but 
with tens of thousands it succeeds. This is 
doubtless the utility which a prominent Congrega- 
tional minister was thinking of, when, a few years 
ago, in a sermon on infant baptism, after declar- 
ing that there is no warrant of any sort in the 
Scriptures for it, he said: " I still regard it as 
a divine institution, just as an ox-yoke is a divine 
institution. It is useful, just as an ox-yoke is 



42 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

useful ; and its utility makes it a divine institu- 
tion. " 

Well, it is an ox-yoke affair, only more so ; 
for no humane farmer will yoke up the little 
calves, and keep the yoke on them through life. 

But granting this sort of utility — the utility of 
an old Romish trick of priestcraft — it is un- 
seemly in the Protestant Church. Look at it 
soberly. Our Presbyterian brother denounces 
Romanism, says it is antichrist, the mother of 
harlots, a scarlet, red handed beast, and many 
more uncomplimentary but truthful names he 
applies to her; and his Congregational, Metho- 
dist, Lutheran and Episcopal brethren of all 
sorts, cry amen ; and then out they all march in 
solemn array, and in the name of the Lord pro- 
ceed to wrap an old rag, filched from the small 
clothes of that same Romish antichrist, about 
the brows of the dear babes. 

Do not say I am ridiculing sacred things. I 
am describing a wicked, inconsistent, and most 
ridiculous thing, and describing it exactly as it 
is. Mind you, I do not ask pedobaptists to 
desist from their denunciations of the apostate 
Romish Church ; but in the name of common 
decency I insist that they should first return the 
bit of old rag to its rightful owner. It is not 
fair to denounce Romanism while you wear that 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 43 

dirty Roman rag on your head. Put it away 
and be consistent. Why should Protestants go 
about wearing the old rags of Romanism ? Why 
so many persist in doing it is one of the hopeless 
conundrums of this age. 

And yet, there is another feature about this 
matter even more mysterious. 

There are men and women who profess to love 
Christ and his truth, thousands of them, who 
will tell you promptly and decidedly that they 
do not believe in infant baptism at all ; that it is 
not of God ; that it is false and foolish ; that 
they would not allow their own children to be 
baptized under any circumstances ; and yet they 
are members of churches which profess to believe 
in it, and they habitually give their influence 
and their money to aid in supporting it. You 
can find scores and hundreds of such people in 
every community — Christians, by their own 
confession, constantly and deliberately contribut- 
ing to the support of a lie. Does this startle 
you ? Well it may ; but it is a plain, undeniable 
fact, which any one can observe for himself every- 
where. 

And in multitudes of cases this class of persons 
contribute so large a proportion of the support 
of their respective churches that, were they to 
withdraw it, the church would be obliged to dis- 



44 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

band. In this way great numbers of pedobap- 
tist churches are now kept up by people who 
profess a firm confidence that pedobaptism is not 
of God, while in the same place an evangelical 
church, which rejects infant baptism, is neglected 
and starved out. 

It is a strange spectacle, indeed. Professed 
Christians all the time stultifying themselves — 
forcing upon other children a solemn religious 
farce which they spurn from their own doors ! 
Have these people a conscience ? Well might 
the children cry out to them, " Let me alone," 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 4$ 



NUMBER IV. 



" Lint on the Nib." 

When I began my work as pastor of the 

church in the village of T , I had not given 

much thought to the communion question. I 
had, indeed, heard some random talk about it, 
chiefly denunciations of the supposed bigotry of 
the Baptists. But, aside from that, I really knew 
nothing of the subject, and, as a matter of course, 
I was a zealous open-communionist. I had just 
one argument, I supposed, and it was extremely 
short, but, to my untaught judgment, wonderfully 
conclusive. I stated it to my church in very few 
words, as follows: "Christ holds fellowship with 
all Christians, whether baptized or not. He re- 
ceives men into heaven who were not members 
of our Church, nor of any other. Why, then, 
should we refuse to receive such men and com- 
mune with them around his table on earth? Is 
the table holier than heaven? Are we better 
than our Lord ? It is enough that the disciple 
be as his Master. If, therefore, the Master has 
received a man, and is holding fellowship with 



46 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

him, we, also, ought to receive him at the Lord's 
table." 

This seemed satisfactory to the church, and, 
with their approval, I habitually invited to the 
Lord's table all who loved the Master, and every- 
body said: "How liberal that is! They are a 
progressive people." 

I was a member of an ecclesiastical conven- 
tion — a sort of hybrid affair, a cross between a 
Congregational association and a Presbyterian 
synod, composed of the pastors and delegates 
of the churches of those two denominations, 
within certain limits. By way of a little pious 
fun, we christened the body with two very sug- 
gestive titles, either one of which could be used, 
according to the taste or pleasure of the party 
using it. A Congregationalist could speak of it 
as the "Congreterial Convention;' and the Pres- 
byterians could denominate it the il Presbyga- 
tional Convention." And this arrangement — 
originating in sport, and rather mirth-provoking 
in its nature — had the greater merit of a certain 
degree of utility, for it gratified the remaining 
vanity of the dear brethren of both denomina- 
tions, since it enabled them, each, to put his 
own denomination before the other without giv- 
ing any definite offense. Of course, a truly lib- 
eral-minded man should not care a fig for his 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 47 

own Church, any more than a generous, neigh- 
borly man should care for his own wife and chil- 
dren ; but, still, our poor human nature is fear- 
fully set in its ways, and the best of men will 
sometimes relapse into such utter, awful selfish- 
ness as to prefer home to any other place in the 
wide, wide world. And if the truth were known, 
it would be found that many of our large-hearted 
men — leaders in our modern Christian liberality 
— are not, after all, quite free from the petty 
weakness of a slight preference for their very 
own dear Church homes. I am not accusing 
them of any intentional wrong. In their edito- 
rials, and sermons, and speeches, and resolutions, 
they are no more liberal than they mean to be ; 
but you know that even the stammering and slow 
of speech find it much easier to preach and re- 
solve than to practice. It should not surprise 
you, therefore, when eloquent speakers, and 
writers, and conventionists strike a key a little 
too high even for their own advanced life. Let 
us not condemn them unduly; rather, let some 
live Yankee invent some ingenious plan by which 
a liberal man can still be liberal to his heart's 
content, and still put his own dear family and 
Church, just a little ahead of all others. But par- 
don this digression, and return with me to our 
dear old Congreterial Convention. 



48 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

Our convention met twice each year, and re- 
mained in session about three days, occupied 
with matters devotional, doctrinal, ecclesiastical 
and literary. We had sermons, essays, speeches 
discussions, and a good time generally. 

It so happened, after I had been at T a 

year or two, that the communion question was 
somehow brought up in our convention, and 
open-communion practice was rather pointedly 
rebuked by some of the brethren. This did not 
exactly please me, and I looked about with no 
little interest to see who would arise and vindicate 
open-communion. But I looked in vain. All 
who spoke condemned it, and the rest evidently 
approved all they said, and there seemed to be 
but one opinion about it in the whole conven- 
tion. 

At last I could endure it no longer, and I 
arose and told the brethren that I believed in 
open-communion; that my church believed in it, 
also ; that we constantly practiced it, and that, 
too, for the very best of reasons; and then I 
launched my one conclusive argument at them 
— and sat down. 

An aged Presbyterian minister, the venerable 
and talented Rev. Mr. C, arose and replied. 
He reminded the convention that he was a warm, 
true friend of the young brother who had just 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 49 

spoken ; and then turning to me, in a most af- 
fectionate and fatherly way, he expressed his 
great surprise and grief at the statements I had 
so frankly made. Then, characterizing open- 
communion as utterly unscriptural and thorough- 
ly demoralizing, he paid his respects to my great 
argument in a way not at all comforting to me. 
He showed that the very first duty of the believer 
is to be baptized, and thus make a public confes- 
sion of his faith in Christ; and that while a man 
neglects or refuses to do this, we have no right 
to assume that he is a Christian ; that Christ him- 
self sharply rebukes such men for claiming to be 
his friends, while living in disobedience to his 
commands, in those awful words: "Why call 
ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I 
say?" He next affirmed that the plain duty of 
every baptized believer is to be a member of the 
Church, submitting to her discipline, aiding in 
bearing her burdens, and helping her in pushing 
on her great work — the evangelization of the 
world. And then he solemnly affirmed that to 
invite persons who were neglecting these great 
duties to sit down to the Lord's table was, prac- 
tically, to encourage them in their attitude of 
disobedience to Christ, and to approve their 
sinful neglect of his Church, and thus to be- 
come, in some measure, partakers of their sins. 
4 



50 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

Somehow he seemed to be talking sound sense 
and Bible truth all the time, and I inwardly pit- 
ied my great argument, he seemed to compress 
it so much and made it look so small. 

After talking half an hour, he turned again to 
me, begging pardon for saying so much, and 
stating as his excuse that he had really forgotten 
himself. But I begged him to go on, as I de- 
sired to know, and do the truth ; and, at my earn- 
est solicitation, he did go on. He proceeded to 
show that the Lord's table belongs in the Lord's 
house (the church), and not on the sidewalk in 
front of it ; and that it is a doubtful compliment 
to the Lord to take his table out of his house 
for the benefit of those who are unwilling to 
come into his house. He thought it was lower- 
ing the table, and the house, and the Master of 
the house, at a dreadful rate. (And just be- 
tween you and me, I thought that he was more 
than half right. I know I would not thank any 
one for taking my table out into the street, set- 
ting it out there, at my expense, for the benefit 
of a set of beggars who would not condescend 
to come into my house; would you? If they 
claimed to be my friends, I would reply: Then 
let them show their friendship by coming into 
my house; wouldn't you?) 

He owned that a man ought to be a Christian 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 51 

before he is baptized or joins the Church, and 
that he had no doubt in his own mind that there 
really were Christians outside the Church. (Then 
I thought he had given himself away ; but I soon 
found he had a way out of- it. ) He said if we 
thought a man outside of the Church was a 
Christian, we could love him and fellowship him 
as a Christian without inviting him to the Lord's 
table. He said we did not go to the Lord's 
table to express our Christian fellowship for each 
other, but to commemorate his death ; and he 
quoted that Baptist proof-text: "This do in re- 
membrance of me. " Somehow he talked in such 
a way that I would have thought him a narrow, 
bigoted Baptist, had I not known that he was a 
straight-laced and very strong Presbyterian. But 
I very naturally discounted his arguments very 
largely: First, because he was not a Congrega- 
tionalism and, therefore, I could not expect him 
to be quite as liberal as we were; and, s'econd, 
because I very much doubted whether he did 
really believe his own words, for it seemed to 
me that, if they were really true, they proved 
too much for a Presbyterian, and demonstrated 
beyond any reasonable doubt that, after all, the 
Baptists were right. - In this I doubtless did my 
venerable friend a momentary injustice, since, 
in fact, there is really no difference of opinion 



52 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

about the Lord's Supper between true Presby- 
terians and the Baptists; their differences in 
practice resulting solely from their differences 
respecting baptism. So true is this that, if a, 
sound, intelligent Presbyterian becomes con- 
vinced that the Baptists are right about baptism, 
he is, forthwith, a thorough-going Baptist with- 
out changing his views one iota respecting com- 
munion. 

My friend, Rev. Mr. C. spoke one hour en 
the subject; and as that seemed to exhaust his 
side of it, and as I did not offer any reply, the 
convention took up other matters. 

But in arranging the programme for the next 
meeting, the brethren appointed me to prepare 
and read an essay on this question: "Is it right 
for a minister of the gospel to invite an itnbaptized 
believer to the Lord's table V I put on a brave 
face to hide my misgivings, and told them to 
come to the next meeting prepared to surrender, 
and with a good-natured laugh we adjourned. 

I have a philosophic young friend, who is in 
the habit of observing: "You don't know what 
is before you," and my experience with that es- 
say illustrates the truth of his remark. I had 
an idea, when the topic was assigned me, that 
the brethren were getting me into a pretty tight 
place, and that I had a particularly hard task 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 53 

before me — an idea which the event very fully 
confirmed. 

But I went about it vigorously, determined 
to succeed, if it were possible, in setting aside 
those Presbyterian-Baptistic arguments, for I 
really dreaded them ; knowing very well that if 
I could not do it, I would be in great danger of 
becoming a straight-out Baptist, for I had many 
and very grave doubts about our Presbygational 
baptism, and they were constantly gaining upon 
me. So I went to work on my essay under a 
severe pressure from all quarters. To add to 
the difficulty of my work, I found my one great 
argument so badly damaged that I was almost 
ashamed to use it; and, indeed, an exhaustive 
search convinced me that I had but little ammu- 
nition of any sort available for use. But that 
only proved the necessity of making the most 
of what I had, which I proceeded eagerly to do. 
I took radidal ground in respect to the rights of 
the individual, contending that he alone must 
be the judge of his duty, as he alone is answer- 
able at the bar of Jehovah for what he does or 
omits to do. I denied that the Church has a 
right to require baptism as a condition of mem- 
bership, or to enforce her opinions respecting 
the qualifications of communicants at the Lord's 
table. Of course, in its logical consequences, 



54 BEHIND THE SCENES 

this would debar the Church from every act of 
discipline. I winced a little at this, but I could 
not escape it except by an unconditional sur- 
render, and I was not prepared for that. Yet I 
could not escape the fact that the Church is re- 
sponsible for her own conduct as a Church, and I 
was obliged to meet this question, as one of the 
inevitable results of the admission of unbaptized 
persons to the Lord's table and to membership 
in his Church: "What shall the Church do in 
the case of any member who may be guilty of 
a continuous neglect of baptism?" I could do no 
less than to affirm it to be her duty kindly, yet 
faithfully, to admonish the one guilty of such 
neglect, and I was obliged to concede also that, 
her admonition being disregarded, the Church 
must proceed in due time to withdraw the hand 
of fellowship from the offender. 

Somehow I felt that this was a particularly 
weak spot in my argument, but I could not help 
it; the weakness was an inherent one; it belong- 
ed inseparably to the position I had felt myself 
driven to assume, and I resorted to the only rem- 
edy left me, heaping up a great pile of mere 
words, to hide it, if possible, from observation. 
Finally, I finished my essay and laid it aside, 
feeling that, all things considered, I had made it 
a success. But "we do not know what is before 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 55 

us;" at least, I did not, and I am glad of it. I 
had my little hour of anticipated pleasure, and 
then came the crash, and my laboriously-planned 
essay, together with the cause it was intended 
to promote, went up and out in smoke. 

It happened in this way. A few days before 
the meeting of our convention, I reviewed my 
essay for the purpose of making verbal correc- 
tions and improvements — to put on the finishing 
touches, as it were. While thus employed, I 
determined to rewrite the entire paper, introduc- 
ing in many places forms of expression more 
elegant, pertinent and forcible. I began this 
work at once, and had nearly completed it, when 
I was interrupted by some derangement of my 
pen. Supposing I had corrected it, I resumed 
my writing, or attempted to, but my pen would 
not work properly. Again I stopped, and ex- 
amining the pen, I found lint on the nib, wedged 
in, so to speak. While removing the lint, my 
eye wandered over the unfinished page of man- 
uscript before me, finally resting on the last 
word I had written — continuous — in the question, 
"What ought the Church to do in the case of 
any member who may be guilty of a continuous 
neglect of baptism?" Continuous ; thought I; that 
is rather an indefinite term. How long is it? 
Baptism is an evident duty, enjoined by the ex- 



56 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

press command of Christ, sanctioned by his own 
example, observed by his apostles, and binding 
on all believers in all ages of the gospel dispen- 
sation. It is certainly an imperative duty for 
every Christian, enforced by the highest author- 
ity. 

How long, then, may the Church sanction the 
neglect of it? How long may she innocently 
acquiesce in a continuous neglect of it? One 
year? No, I dare not affirm that. A whole 
year of known disobedience ! no, that will never 
do. Well, may she not permit a neglect of it 
for six months f Here I paused and thought a 
long time. Six months of known disregard of 
Christ's command, sanctioned by his Church ! 
No, no ; that must not be. That is altogether 
too continuous. I dare not approve that. I know 
it would be wrong. Well, then, say three months. 
But I did not dare to say three months. But 
surely the Church may wink at a short delay, 
say six weeks ? Ah, my dear reader, I was in 
a very tight place. What could I do? How 
could I escape? Would God be well pleased 
with six weeks of known and daring disobedi- 
ence of his command? Would he be pleased 
with his Church for winking at so great a sin ? 
If I should counsel the Church to do this thing, 
would he say to me: "Well done, thou good 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 57 

and faithful servant ; thou hast been faithful over 
a few things, I will make thee ruler over many 
things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord?" 
I saw clearly that that word continuous, which I 
had used so carelessly, must go, and that with 
it my whole essay must also go, and that as an 
honest man I must eat a big batch of humble 
pie, by publicly renouncing open communion 
both in theory and practice. 

I arose, and taking up my manuscript, I thrust 
it into the flames. It burned very swiftly and 
beautifully, and I had the comfort of knowing 
that it was good for something. 

In due time I attended the convention, and 
gladdened the hearts of my Presbyterian and 
Congregational brethren by confessing myself a 
convert to close communion. My dear church, 
after listening to my statement of my reasons 
for proposing a change in our practice, cheer- 
fully assented, and we were no longer open com- 
munion in practice. It was, indeed, a great 
change, and the passing years confirm in me 
the conviction that it was a change in the right 
direction; for, in substance, it was simply a 
practical recognition of the divine law as su- 
preme. 

As I think of the means by which it was 
brought about, I am astonished. In those youth- 



58 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

ful days I was very impetuous. I think I had 
some genuine piety, but I know I was not with- 
out a great deal of self-conceit and pride ; and, 
like thousands of better men, I often used words 
without weighing fully their import. And this 
is not a slight fault, for words, though impalpa- 
ble, are things — almost living creatures, I some- 
times think — armed with mysterious, wonderful 
power to wound, or to heal, to enlighten and 
bless, or to darken and destroy. 

No wonder the Master has said: "By thy 
words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words 
thou shalt be condemned." He who uses words 
freely, handles keen-edged tools, and has need 
of great wisdom and moderation, that he may 
employ only fitting ones, and arrange them wise- 
ly, kindly and well. 

And he who writes has need of great circum- 
spection. His pen is an instrument of power. 
It will trace lines on his own heart not easily 
effaced. For myself, I often have occasion to 
recall with gratitude that crisis in my life, when, 
in the providence of God, all its currents were 
turned into new channels by "lint on the nib." 



BEHIND THE SCENES. $Q 



NUMBER V. 



" I do fiotfor one moment admit that immersion is 
valid baptism." 

After the tragic ending of my essay, I pre- 
pared a brief paper, explaining the matter as 
well as I could, and apologizing for the absence 
of the expected but defunct defense of open 
communion. In that paper I affirmed that no 
person need delay baptism on account of the 
diversity of views and practices respecting it, 
since those who could not see the way clearly 
to accept sprinkling, or pouring, could be im- 
mersed, which all Christendom accepts as valid 
baptism. This simple statement of a fact, which 
at that time I had never heard controverted, 

brought my dear old pastor, Rev. Mr. D , 

to his feet in an earnest protest. "Sir," said 
he, "I believe I am a Christian, though a very 
unworthy one, and I do not for one moment 
admit that immersion is valid baptism." I was 
greatly amazed. I looked at him in utter aston- 
ishment. I was greatly perplexed, too ; for, 
knowing him intimately, I had never for an 



60 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

instant doubted his piety. Indeed, I had long 
revered him as a very devoted Christian man, 
and a faithful and fearless minister. But I also 
knew facts in his history that seemed irrecon- 
cilable with this strange, sweeping statement. I 
gazed at him in silence some moments, hardly 
knowing what reply to make. There was a 
large congregation present. It was in his own 
church, and I was standing in his pulpit, while 
he stood near the center of the room. Every 
eye seemed fixed on him, and the silent suspense 
soon became painful. At last I said: "Bro. 
D , may I ask you one question?" " Cer- 
tainly," said he. " Bro. D ,"saidl, "if 

immersion is not valid baptism, why did you lead 
your own daughter, who had been sprinkled in 
infancy, into the river and immerse her, saying : 
'I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?" If im- 
mersion is not valid baptism, how could you do 
that?" It was now his turn to remain silent, 
which he did for some time, meanwhile ap- 
parently engaged in an earnest study of the toes 
of his boots. At last he looked up and said : 
"I did it to please my daughter. I did not 
regard it as baptism, but she did ; and I did it 
to please her." 

Just then a Presbyterian minister arose and 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 6l 

said: "Sir, look at me. I do not admit that 
immersion is valid baptism." I did look at him, 
but having no personal kowledge • of his practice 
in respect to baptism, I contented myself with 

this remark : " My dear Bro. L , I am sorry 

for you." Yet I have since known persons 
whom Bro. L — i — had immersed. It is true, he 
did not like to do it ; but when they said : "We 
must be immersed, and if you will not immerse 
us, we will go to the Baptists," he replied, "Oh, 
well, rather than have you go to the Baptists, I 
will immerse you." And he did. 

I do not know of one evangelical church of any 
denomination which will not receive a Baptist as 
a baptized person. I do not say there is no 
church that would refuse to receive him as bap- 
tized, for this is a wide world, and there may be 
a church, or a sort of one, somewhere in some 
out-of-the-way nook or cranny, that would 
actually refuse to receive an honest, upright Bap- 
tist on his immersion, and would require him to 
be sprinkled. If anybody on earth knows of 
such a church, I would be glad to have him 
publish the fact, together with the name and 
location of the church, and its reasons for a course 
so very singular. 

It is said our Presbyterian brethren have been 
known to depose a minister for immersing' a 



62 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

person, and it may actually be true that they 
have done so ; but I never yet knew a Presby- 
terian Church to refuse membership to a Baptist 
because he had been immersed, nor to require 
him to be sprinkled as a condition of admission 
among them. The truth is, that immersion, as 
baptism, is like gold coin — current everywhere, 
in all the churches. 

Almost as a matter of course, those who per- 
sist in the practice^ of sprinkling do all they dare 
do to discredit immersion, casting contempt 
upon it, and, in many cases, refusing to admin- 
ister it ; but I know of none who have the hardi- 
hood to say that those who have been immersed 
upon a profession of faith are not baptized. 
Even my old pastor, who so stoutly declared, 
" I do not for one moment admit that immersion 
is valid baptism," was in the habit of receiving 
immersed persons into his church as properly 
baptized. 

I have often been astonished at the hostility 
manifested toward immersion by men who, at 
the very same time, are in the habit of recogniz- 
ing it as valid baptism whenever it knocks for 
admission into their respective folds. Arid yet 
the motive is usually evident. A young lady, 
whose family are Congregationalists, became a 
regular attendant at our church (Baptist), and 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 63 

everything moved along very pleasantly — her 
family being among my warm personal friends 
— until she became an earnest Christian, and 
applied for baptism and membership with us. 
Then there was a commotion in the camp. Her 
family positively forbade her uniting with the 
Baptist Church. They would consent to her 
being immersed, but not by a Baptist minister, 
nor to join a Baptist Church. After many days 
of unavailing pleading and tears, finding she 
could not change their resolution, she reluctant- 
ly went to the Methodist Church (there was no 
Congregational Church in the town), and was 
immersed by the pastor. I was present at her 
baptism, as were many hundreds more, and the 
manner in which it was conducted was an outrage 
almost insufferable. 

Arriving at the river bank, near the center of 
the town, the minister instantly marched into 
the water with a determined sort of stride, as if 
he were impatient to the last degree and deter- 
mined to get through with a disagreeable job as 
speedily as posssible. He kept his hat on his 
head, and, without waiting for a word of prayer, 
or any religious services whatever, he led the 
poor girl into the water, and, halting where it 
was not more than two-thirds the proper depth, 
he hurriedly uttered the baptismal formula and 



64 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

then fairly hurled her under the water, as if in 
anger ; then, jerking her out, he led her to the 
shore, and, without removing his hat, dismissed 
the people with the briefest sort of a benediction. 

And yet the weather was pleasant, and there 
was plenty of time for the proper and decorous 
observance of the ordinance. He evidently did 
not intend to observe it in a decorous manner, 
lest others might be impressed by it, and come 
to regard it as the scriptural baptism. In other 
words, he meant to heap contempt upon immer- 
sion, which yet he received as baptism. 

He intended to neutralize the influence of im- 
mersion as much as possible by his method of 
administration, and his desire to defend sprink- 
ling prompted that intention. 

And for the same reason the family of the girl 
consented that she should receive immersion at 
his hands rather than mine. They had been, and 
continued to be, my warm friends ; but they 
knew that immersion by a Baptist minister, in 
connection with a Baptist Church, means some- 
thing — means a condemnation and rejection of 
sprinkling — and they had been sprinkled. Their 
refusal of her request for permission to receive 
baptism at my hands, and to unite with our 
church, was neither less nor more than an im- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 6$ 

potent effort to justify themselves in having re- 
ceived sprinkling as baptism. 

But they also knew that immersion by a 
Methodist minister, in connection with the 
Methodist Church, means only a concession to 
the opinions and choice of the candidate ; and 
they probably knew, also, that that Methodist 
minister, like too many others, would take care 
to make it mean just as little as possible, even 
by way of such concession. Such motives, I 
grant you, are not remarkable for their Christian 
tone ; but such as they are, they are far more 
common, and far more potent, than many good 
people imagine. 

A few years ago, Rev. Mr. B , a Methodist 

Presiding Elder, was called to officiate in a Meth- 
odist Church, in one of the beautiful interior 
cities of Ohio, on a certain occasion when a large 
number of persons were to be baptized. What 
he did, and how he did it, I will tell you, as he 
told it to me, and in substantially the same 
words : 

' ' It was our quarterly meeting, and being 
Presiding Elder of that district, it was my duty 
to preach, and knowing that there were a large 
number of persons to be baptized that day, I 
resolved to speak on baptism. You know that 
by the rules of our Church we are required to 
5 



66 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

give each candidate his choice of modes ; and 
we immerse, sprinkle or pour each one, as he 
may elect. 1 1 had some fear lest a few might 
that day choose to be immersed, and I did not 
want to immerse them, if I could, in any reason- 
able way, avoid it. So I proceeded to show, as 
well as I could, that sprinkling is the proper 
mode, but I could not make it so clear as I de- 
sired ; so I turned to immersion, and said all I 
could think of to discredit the practice. I called 
attention to the great inconvenience of it at all 
times, and especially to ladies, and to the absolute 
discomfort and danger of it in cold weather. I 
enlarged upon this, describing the cutting of the 
ice, the crowds shivering in the chilling wintry 
winds, the poor Baptist preacher standing in the 
ice-water, chilled to the very bones, his arms 
encrusted with ice, and his teeth chattering with 
cold, and the forlorn candidates struggling and 
choking amid the floating ice, or trembling in 
their frozen garments until the close of the service. 
I then spoke of the manifest impropriety of the 
immersion of ladies by gentlemen, and in a 
promiscuous crowd, and related a number of 
anecdotes to illustrate the great indecencies, al- 
ways liable to occur on such occasions. 

" My sermon was received with a very marked 
interest throughout, and I fancied no one would 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 6j 

care, in the very face of it, to ask for immersion. 
But alas ! I soon found that this was only a fancy; 
for a very large majority of the candidates — 
among the number many excellent ladies — in- 
sisted on being immersed, and I was obliged to 
march at the head of that congregation to the 
river and there immerse them. Well, I got 
through it somehow ; but from that day to this 
I have never preached on baptism, and I think 
my call to preach upon it has run out.'' 

This confession speaks for itself, and tells the 
whole tale ; and for my part, I honor Mr. 

B for his frankness in the matter. Yet he 

told it to me as a capital joke on himself. He 
did not seem to see anything morally wrong in 
the part he had taken in the matter. And yet 
he is a good man in my judgment, and in the 
estimation of all who know him well. In respect 
to baptism, he is simply blinded and warped by 
the pernicious, unscriptural usage and views of 
his Church. Doubtless, he entered that Church 
in early life, or at least before he had examined 
the question of baptism with anything like 
thoroughness ; and having accepted things as he 
found them, he was slowly, but surely, molded 
into conformity with them. And as time passed 
on he became fixed and firmly set in his niche 
and notions, and when occasion required, he 



68 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

made the best defense of his practice that the 
case admits of; for, ridiculous as it is, no man 
can improve on it. 

In the language of an old friend, a Congrega- 
tional minister, addressed to me, " Don't you 
know, sir, that every person we pedobaptists 
immerse is just so much capital for the Baptists?" 
This friendly reprimand was provoked by my 
action in the case of two ladies, recent converts 
under my ministry, who desired me to give them 
the reasons why they should be sprinkled. I 
refused to do so, bidding them study the Bible 
for themselves, and telling them frankly that it 
was enough for me to sprinkle them, if they 
should require it at my hands. " But," said I, 
" examine the matter for yourselves, and when 
your minds are made up let me know, and I will 
sprinkle you, or I will immerse you, whichever 
you may prefer." 

The ladies finally decided that, as I was willing 
to sprinkle them if they desired it, I must regard 
sprinkling as scriptural and right; and that, being 
a minister, and engaged constantly in the study 
of such matters, I must know all about it; and 
that the weather being exceedingly cold, it would 
be much more comfortable to be sprinkled ; and 
so they requested me to sprinkle them, which I 
did. But I had urged them to decide for them- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 6g 

selves, by the study of the Bible, and my friend 
very justly regarded that as a risky business for 
the friends of sprinkling, as indeed it is. I knew 
that, when I did it, and I secretly hoped the 
ladies would choose to be sprinkled, for I dreaded 
to go into the water to immerse, fearing that I 
could not do it ; but I was actually afraid to ad- 
vise them to be sprinkled lest, after all, it might 
be wrong. 

Immersion not valid baptism ! That is strange, 
indeed ; strange that any good man ever could 
affirm it; stranger still if one single Christian man 
could anywhere be found who actually believed 
it. The truth is that immersion lies upon the 
very surface of the Scripture text, while sprink- 
ling, if it be there at all, is buried so deep that 
even the most learned men can not find it. 
A young lady, just converted to Christ, came to 
her mother in great distress, saying, " Mother, 
is sprinkling in the Bible?" "Certainly, my 
daughter." Her mother was a Presbyterian. 
"Mother, please find it for me. " The mother 
searched for it, but in vain. She said: "Daughter, 
I know it is there, but I can not find it. I will 
ask our minister to find it when he comes." 
In a few days he came, and the mother preferred 
her request: "Is sprinkling in the Bible?" 
"Why, of course it is," said he. " Well, my 



70 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

daughter asked me to find it for her, and I 
thought I could, but after looking a long time I 
could not. Will you please to find it for us?" 
"Yes; hand me the Bible." She handed it to 
him, and as he turned over the leaves he en- 
gaged the mother in an earnest conversation 
about other matters, until baptism was quite 
forgotten, and then he rose and left the house. 
The next time he came his attention was again 
called to the subject, and once more he took the 
Bible to look up sprinkling. But this time the 
mother, fully aroused, was not to be eluded so 
easily. She pressed him closely, and at last he 
rose and left, saying, ' ' Yes, sprinkling is in the 
Bible, but it takes a great deal of learning and 
time to find it." 

A gentleman, whose attention was arrested 
by the fact that converted Indians are very apt 
to become Baptists, inquired of one of them why 
it was so. The Indian, after thinking a moment, 
replied: "Well, I don't know, unless it is that 
we poor Indians, being generally ignorant people, 
are obliged to take the Book just as it reads." 
Ah, that is the secret of it, and that, too, is one 
of the best proofs that Baptists are right. For 
the dear old Bible is the book of the people, 
written in the language of every-day life. Jesus, 
sending John the tokens of his own Messiahship, 



BEHIND THE SCENES. ?I 

bid the men to tell him, ' ' The poor have the 
gospel preached unto them. " And to-day one 
of the best tokens of the divinity of the Bible is 
the fact that the masses of the people, the 
common people, can read it and understand it 
for themselves without the intervention of scribe 
or pharisee, priest or Pope. I do not decry 
learning (God forbid), but I call attention to the 
fact that the Bible speaks to the unlearned as 
distinctly and clearly as to the most highly 
cultured. It is the people's book, and so long as 
it is in their hands and they are at liberty to 
read it for themselves, the truth has nothing to 
fear, and ultimate triumph is certain. 

The time was when immersion, as baptism, 
was on trial, and those who accepted it did so at 
their peril ; but that day has passed away never 
to return, and to-day sprinkling and pouring are 
on trial, and the trial is going against them at a 
tremendous rate. Already it is a difficult 
matter to find competent men who are willing to 
attempt their defense, while scores of their best 
friends frankly admit that they have no case at 
all. Here and there, perhaps, one may still be 
found willing to rise up and say that immersion 
is not valid baptism ; but even they actually re- 
ceive it and treat it as valid in the most solemn 
business of the Church. But, on the other 



J2 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

hand, millions tell you in the most emphatic 
manner possible that immersion is not only 
baptism, but the only valid water baptism, while 
other millions insist on immersion as the only 
baptism satisfactory to them. Two hundred 
years ago men were ostracizing Baptists for the 
practice of immersion ; to-day the descendants 
of those same men are hastening to put bap- 
tisteries into their churches. 



BEHIND THE SCENES. ?$ 



NUMBER VI. 



' '/ will go to the bottom of this matter, and find 
out the tfuth if I can; and wherever that leads 
me I will cheerfully go." 

After a residence of several years in the vil- 
lage of T my health failed, and I was obliged 

to leave my dear people and enter a field where 
my labors would not be so severe. Accordingly 
I removed to the village of M , with the un- 
derstanding that I should preach but once a 
week, and that I should spend the most of my 
time in the saddle — in search of health. 

When I had been there some five or six 
months, business called me to a distant city for 
a few days. While there a friend, a Congrega- 
tional divinity student, gave me a little anony- 
mous book, filled with extracts from various 
pedobaptist works on the subject of baptism. 

As he handed it to me he laughingly observed 
that he had not read it himself, but that the 
Baptist brother who gave it to him would gladly 
give him another, and that it might serve to 
amuse me and while away an idle hour. I put 



74 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

it in my pocket, and did not think of it again 
until some days after my return home. 

Sitting in my study one day, somewhat wearied 
with the labor of preparation for the next Sab- 
bath, and wishing for something diverting to 
read, I suddenly recollected the little book my 
friend had given me. I got it and sat down to 
read. Oh, horrors ! Here was diversion with 
a vengeance. The book was literally packed 
with extracts from pedobaptist writers, contain- 
ing the most damaging admissions of the correct- 
ness of the Baptist views. My mind, already 
sorely pressed with doubts about infant baptism 
and sprinkling, was instantly greatly agitated. 

If we were right, why did our champions 
make such fatal admissions? Surely a man de- 
fending his own practice would admit nothing 
against it which he did not deem to be true. 
But here were some of our greatest writers giv- 
ing our cause away completely. Did they know 
that we really have no valid defense? Did they, 
after all, know that the Baptists are right? It 
certainly seemed so. 

But hold! This is a book gotten up by some 
Baptist, thought I, and he has garbled these 
extracts, doctoring them up to suit his own 
purposes. Dcfubtless he misrepresents these 
writers, or, rather, makes them misrepresent 



BEHIND THE SCENES'. 75 

themselves by a skillful but dishonest arrange- 
ment of their sentences. This notion gave me 
a little relief. But just then my eye rested on 
an extract from the "Systematic Theology of 
Stojr and Flatt" which began by stating that 
the original baptism was probably immersion, 
since the apostles could understand our Lord's 
command in no other way than as enjoining an 
immersion of the body in water. 

That Storr and Flatt — great Lutheran theo- 
logians — could ever have published such stuff, 
was to me utterly incredible. I dashed the book 
upon the floor, crying out in great indignation : 
"I wish those Baptists could tell the truth. " 
Instantly I recollected that I had, but a few days 
before, added the work of Storr and Flatt to 
my library. I ran across the room and clutched 
the volume whence the extract purported to have 
been taken, and returned to my chair, saying, 
as I did so: "I will expose that lie." Opening 
the volume at the page indicated in the little 
book, I sat many minutes fairly dumb with as- 
tonishment. This is what I read in the great 
work of Storr and Flatt. You will find it in 
their Biblical Theology, vol. II., art. Baptism, 
page 290, edition 1826: 

1 * The primitive mode was probably by immer- 
sion. The disciples of our Lord could under- 



76 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

stand his command in no other manner than as 
enjoining immersion: for the baptism of John, 
to which Jesus himself submitted, and also the 
earlier baptism of the disciples of Jesus, were 
performed by dipping the subject into cold 
water. 

"And that they actually did understand it so 
is proved, partly by those passages of the New 
Testament which evidently allude to immersion, 
. . and partly from the fact that immer- 
sion was so customary in the ancient Church, 
that even in the third century the baptism of the 
sick, who were merely sprinkled with water, was 
entirely neglected by some, and by others was 
thought inferior to the baptism of those who 
were in health, and who received baptism, not 
merely by aspersion, but who actually bathed 
themselves in water. This is evident from Cyp- 
rian (Epist. 6g, ed. Bremar, p. 185, etc.) and 
Eusebius (His. Eccles. L. y vi., cap. 43), where 
we find the following extract from the letter of 
the Roman bishop, Cornelius : ' Novatus received 
baptism on a sick bed by aspersion (perichutheis), 
if it can be said that such a person received bap- 
tism.' No person, who had during sickness 
been baptized by aspersion, was admitted into 
the clerical office. Moreover, the old custom 
of immersion was also retained a long time in 



BEHIND THE SCENES. J*] 

the Western Church — at least in the case of 
those who were not indisposed. 

"Under these circumstances, it is certainly to 
be lamented that Luther was not able to accom- 
plish his wish with regard to the introduction of 
immersion, as he had done in the restoration of 
wine in the eucharist. But it is evident that 
there was a very important difference between 
the two cases. 

"After the restoration of the wine, the laity 
could partake of both bread and wine in the cel- 
ebration of the supper of our Lord. But, on 
the contrary, if immersion had at that time been 
restored, whatever course those who had been 
baptized by aspersion might pursue, whether 
they were contented with their baptism by as- 
persion, or incurred the danger of disobeying 
Christ's precept by being baptized twice, they 
would have been harassed by doubts and fears, 
which it would have been difficult, and, perhaps, 
in most cases, impossible to remove. Hap- 
pily, however, the change of the ancient custom 
of immersion, although it ought not to have been 
made, destroys nothing that is essential to this 
ceremony, as it was instituted by our Savior." 

Now study this long extract and note its amaz- 
ing admissions, and then realize, if you can, my 
situation. Here were at least five of our great- 



78 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

est pedobaptist scholars and theologians affirm- 
ing all that the much-abused Baptists claim as 
to what baptism is. Note their affirmations : 

I. That Christ commanded immersion. 

II. That his command could not be under- 
stood by the apostles in any other way. 

III. That Christ himself was immersed in 
water. 

IV. That his apostles really did understand 
his command to enjoin immersion, and that they 
obeyed it by immersing. 

V. That immersion was the practice of the 
whole Church in primitive times. 

VI. That immersion continued the general 
practice in the Western (or Romish) Church a 
long time. 

VII. That it was finally supplanted by sprink- 
ling — a change which ought not to have been 
made. 

VIII. That Luther desired to restore immer- 
sion in baptism, but could not. 

IX. That his failure to restore it is to be re- 
gretted. 

And no\y remember that these are the admis- 
sions, or rather the affirmations, of five great 
pedobaptist theologians, made in a standard 
work on theology. They are the statements of 
Drs. Storr and Flatt, published without a word 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 79 

of dissent by Dr. Schmucker, aided by Moses 
Stuart and Prof. Murdock. These are all men 
of the greatest eminence, renowned for learning 
and ability. They belong, it is true, to the last 
generation, but they have few peers among the 
men of to-day. And they affirm substantially 
that the Baptists are right, and sprinkling is, in- 
deed, an innovation, and an unfortunate one. 
Do you wonder that I was overwhelmed, and 
most thoroughly confounded? At first I thought 
an unconditional surrender was the only thing 
left me, as an honest man. But presently I 
considered that these great men might, after all, 
be mistaken ; that possibly they had sold them- 
selves for nought, and I resolved that they should 
not sell me. I would examine the matter for 
myself. But why should I ? Why not dismiss 
the whole matter and keep right along in my 
present practice ! If I was wrong, I was in re- 
spectable and pious company. If it was a sin, 
hosts of good men were guilty of it, and surely 
I could stand it if they could! Why think about 
it ! But I could not help thinking about it. 

Here were great men, whom the world revered 
as good men, deliberately publishing a virtual 
confession that, in the matter of a solemn Chris- 
tian ordinance, they and their churches were 
habitually disobeying the command of our Lord. 



80 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

Would their daring disobedience excuse me in 
pursuing the same course? Could I plead their 
example? And if at the last it should appear, 
to their shame and confusion, that Christ does 
make a difference between those who obey him 
and those who do not, would it gratify me to 
be a partaker of their condemnation? If they 
were, as indeed they seemed to be, blind lead- 
,ers, would their reputation prevent their falling 
into the ditch? Could I afford to be a blind 
follower of such blind leaders? But was I not 
also, in a more humble way, a leader? Were 
not many following me with implicit confidence 
in my wisdom and integrity? What right had 
I to abuse their confidence by a willing or will- 
ful ignorance? Then the authority of my Lord, 
was that to be set at nought, or to be lightly es- 
teemed by his professed disciples? But then 
came the thought, urged by so many as an ex- 
cuse for a neglect to look into this matter, or, 
having looked into it, for continuing to support 
the practice of sprinkling contrary to the divine 
command: "Oh, it is only an outward form, 
anyway! " Only an outward form — that is true, 
but it is an outward form that Christ himself com- 
mands us to observe — if these great pedobaptist 
witnesses are correct. If he really commands 
me to observe this outward form, then neglect 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 8l 

of it is disobedience to his command. In reject- 
ing the form he has enjoined, I reject his author- 
ity. Am I ready to do that? If I do it, how 
can I call him Lord? Will he not reply, "Why 
call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things 
which I say?" 

Finally the struggle in my mind took form : 
Suppose I can find out the truth about this mat- 
ter, what will I do about it? What ought I to 
do about it? Suppose I learn that Jesus did act- 
ually enjoin immersion, am I bound to obey 
his injunction ? Am I willing, in that case, to 
reject sprinkling? 

Over this issue I wrestled three days in ago- 
nizing prayer. Then came a clear, settled, firm 
conviction that it was my duty, at any cost, 
thoroughly to investigate the whole question of 
baptism, and to yield obedience to the expressed 
will of Jesus, whenever' I had clearly learned 
what that will is, or cease to call him Lord. 
And with that conviction of duty came also a 
sense of consecrated strength, and a confidence 
of divine help in doing it. 

Then I firmly resolved that, " God being my 
helper, I will go to the bottom of this matter, 
and find out the truth, if I can, and wherever 
that leads I will cheerfully go." 

You wonder, perhaps, that it should have cost 
6 



82 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

me a struggle so severe, and so prolonged, to 
arrive at a resolution so evidently just and so 
clearly demanded by every principle of loyalty 
to Christ in every case of honest doubt respect- 
ing duty. I have often wondered at it myself, for 
I regarded Christ as King all that time. But my 
situation was peculiar. I had long been accus- 
tomed to hear baptism spoken of as a "mere 
form;" its outward conditions as altogether in- 
different ; its form a matter of personal choice ; 
and that, whatever Christ might have enjoined, 
he was evidently well pleased with those who 
were sprinkled, since he constantly blessed them 
and their labors in his vineyard. I had also great 
personal interests at stake. I was a minister in 
a denomination greatly endeared to me. The 
thought of a possible separation from it was in- 
tensely painful. I was pastor of a small but 
lovely church. Our numbers had already dou- 
bled since my settlement with it. Not one dis- 
cordant note marred our perfect harmony. Our 
prospects were very bright. I was bound up in 
my church by ties exceedingly strong. Among 
our own people I had a wide acquaintance, and 
hosts of warm friends outside my own parish. 
I was a young man, and not without that laud- 
able ambition to enlarge my sphere of usefulness 
which ought to animate the breast of every young 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 83 

man. But that was not all, nor the greatest of 
my difficulties. The outcome of a thorough 
examination might be Baptistic, and I shrank 
from the thought of becoming a Baptist. And 
I dreaded, too, the idea of a change, lest I might 
be called a turn-coat, and be regarded as a fickle 
sort of man, unstable in my ways ; a reputation 
well-nigh fatal to ministerial success, no matter 
how little it may be merited. 

These are the great influences that held me 
back; but, thank God, through his grace, they 
were at last overcome, and I entered resolutely 
upon the dreaded investigation and carried out 
fully my solemn resolution, though it cost me 
all the changes and sacrifices I so much feared. 
For many weary months I studied, and thought, 
and prayed ; examining rigidly every argument 
for and against sprinkling and infant baptism. 
I read scores of our own authors, and traveled 
many scores of miles to confer with our ablest 
champions. I resolutely refused to read a Bap- 
tist book, or to confer with any member of any 
Baptist church, or with any of their ministers. 
In this way I sought to avoid the danger of 
being influenced by personal feelings, or per- 
sonal appeals. It was a rather one-sided plan, 
I must confess, but it seemed the best thing for 
me to do ; and I do not regret it. Day by day 



84 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

the mists cleared away. Day by day the truth 
became more evident, and more firmly estab- 
lished. At 'length I could no longer doubt. I 
was fully, thoroughly convinced that we were 
wrong and the Baptists were right. Reluctantly 
I severed my connection with my dear people 
and went out from among them, bearing with 
me their benedictions, and most precious mem- 
ories of their brotherly kindness. 

And though the way was painful, I am glad 
God led me thus. I am not harassed by doubts 
whether I am doing right when I immerse one 
who professes faith in the Lord Jesus. I can 
confidently invoke the presence of the Master at 
a baptismal scene, for I know by a blessed ex- 
perience that he delights to honor his own or- 
dinance, and to put a difference between that 
which he has commanded and the invention of 
men, which, with so many, has usurped its place. 
Many years have passed away, bringing me en- 
larged facilities for a more thorough study of this 
subject, and, year by year, the evidence contin- 
ues to accumulate, until I am amazed that I 
could have had any doubt about it. 

And yet men go on making sport of immer- 
sion, and putting sprinkling in its place, just as 
blindly as I once did. I pray that God may 
lead them to test the practice by his holy word ; 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 85 

for when a man resolves, ' ' By the grace of God, 
I will go to the bottom of this matter, and find 
out the truth, if I can, and wherever that leads I 
will cheerfully go, " he is sure to become a Baptist. 

I am not a prophet, nor do I belong to the 
honored family of the prophets, but I venture 
the prediction that one hundred years hence no 
one will pretend that sprinkling is baptism ; that 
the practice of it will be unknown among evan- 
gelical Christians ; that it will be a part of the 
almost-forgotten rubbish of a less enlightened 
past, which antiquarians will occasionally ex- 
plore, much as they now search the Catacombs 
of ancient Rome, or the rock tombs of ancient 
Egypt. And the preachers of that period will 
occasionally allude to it, only to point a moral, 
to demonstrate man's need of divine guidance 
under all circumstances. 

Now, do not turn up your classic nose and 
say, "Oh, pshaw!" Just wait and see; and if 
it isn't so, just come and tell me ; and I will not 
only concede the failure of my prophecy, but I 
will also lament the wickedness of good men in 
persisting so long in their disobedience to the 
command of Christ, and their folly in preferring 
an invention of men to an ordinance of God ; 
and I will insist then, as now, that immersion 
is the only valid baptism. 



86 BEHIND THE SCENES. 



NUMBER VII. 



" If you are determined to go to the bottom of this 
matter, you will come out a Baptist ; there is 
no help for that. " 

I had been engaged in the study of baptism 
about four weeks, and daily our practice seemed 
more and more unscriptural and indefensible. 
I was in a sad plight. I did not dare to give up 
the investigation, for a solemn vow obliged me 
to continue it. And, besides, I desired most 
earnestly to know and do the truth, and the 
truth only. But to find the truth in this case, I 
must search for it. It seemed to be buried be- 
neath a vast heap of rubbish, which must be re- 
moved. But, on the other hand, each day in- 
creased the probability, in my mind, that I would 
ultimately be obliged to give up both sprinkling 
and infant baptism, and with them my church 
and denomination, and go over to the Baptists ; 
and it seemed impossible to do that. I was very 
much in the condition of that mystical man who 
is said to have caught a bear by the fore paws. 
If the legend be true, the bear was in the act of 



BEHIND THE SCENES. %J 

descending a tree. His hind feet had just touch- 
ed the ground, while his fore feet were on either 
side of the tree. At that critical moment the 
endangered rustic caught those paws and held 
them fast, the while crying lustily for help. But, 
alas ! no one heard his cries, and no help came. 
Time moved on, doubtless with leaden feet, in 
the opinion of the rustic ; but without bringing 
relief to the poor man. He did not dare let go, 
and it seemed impossible to hold on a moment 
longer. If the legend may be trusted, the man 
was in a worse condition than the bear. How 
that man got out of the scrape, would be a very 
interesting bit of history, if only it were well 
written — that is, if he ever got out of it at all. 
Here I was, grappling a problem which threat- 
ened my overthrow, yet I could not let go my 
hold. I am sure I earnestly desired help — ef- 
fective help — and, at last, I thought it had surely 
come. 

I learned one day that Rev. Dr. S , an 

able Presbyterian minister, had just arrived in 
our town on a vacation trip, and that he intend- 
ed to remain several days. I immediately sent 
him an invitation to occupy my pulpit the next 
Sabbath, and he accepted it, and then left town 
on a short hunting trip, from which he returned 
on Saturday evening. I did not succeed, there- 



OS BEHIND THE SCENES. 

fore, in getting a personal interview with hirn 
until just before the hour of service on Sabbath 
morning. I met him at the church, and request- 
ing him to step aside for a few moments' conver- 
sation, I told him about my trouble, saying that 
I had made a solemn vow to go to the bottom 
of the matter ; that I had been studying it earn- 
estly and prayerfully, almost day and night, for 
four weeks, and that the ground seemed to be 
slipping away from under me, and that, unless 
I could get help, I would be obliged to give up 
sprinkling and infant baptism, and ended by ask- 
ing him earnestly to help me. He listened calm- 
ly until I stopped ; and knowing, as I did, that 
he was a man of culture and of much ability, I 
confidently expected immediate aid. 

What sort of aid he gave me will appear from 
his reply, which I give verbatim : 

"I am sorry to hear you talk so, for if you 
are determined to go to the bottom of this mat- 
ter, you will come out a Baptist; there is no 
help for that, and I regret it, for I hate close 
communion so. If you have studied this sub- 
ject four weeks, you know more about it than I 
do, for I never studied it at all, and I never will. 
I was born a Presbyterian, I was brought up a 
Presbyterian, I have lived a Presbyterian, and I 
mean to die a Presbyterian. Of course, we had 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 89 

these subjects in the theological seminary, but I 
gave no thought to them. I have never allowed 
myself to entertain any doubt about the correct- 
ness of our practice, and I never will. I think 
I love infant baptism so wel\ that I could not 
give it up, even if I knew it to be wrong. As 
for myself, I am resolved never to admit any 
question about it; but for you, with your reso- 
lution to go to the bottom of it, there is but one 
result possible — you must come out a Baptist. 
I know enough about the matter to know that; 
and I am sorry it is so, for I hate close com- 
munion." 

This strange, astounding speech seemed to 
take away my breath, and my power of utter- 
ance, for a few moments. I was amazed, grieved, 
nay, almost stupefied by it. At last, regaining 
in some degree my self-control, I said to him: 

"My dear sir, how dare you talk in this man- 
ner? You are a public teacher — a minister of 
the gospel — and your people look to you for in- 
struction in divine things ; and here is a question 
dividing the people of God in a dreadful manner, 
causing discord in families, and separating many 
who otherwise would be firm friends, bringing 
great scandal on the cause of Christ, and very 
bitter grief to many Christian hearts — and yet 
you declare that you have never sought to know 



gO BEHIND THE SCENES. 

the truth about it, and that you never will. But 
all this time you have taken sides in this contro- 
versy, maintaining firmly before the public that 
your side is right and the other side wrong, 
when, in fact, for aught you know, your side is 
altogether wrong! And your people are saying: 
' We can not be wrong, for Bro. S. is an edu- 
cated man, and a good man, and he is confident 
we are right.' 

"And with this great responsibility on you, 
you deliberately refuse to look into the matter. 
You resolutely shut your eyes that you may not 
see, and stop your ears that you may not hear. 
By your own statement, you willfully shut out 
the light, and make yourself, on this subject, a 
blind leader. I ask you, sir, how you dare to 
do this thing? How can you take this fearful 
responsibility?" 

He replied, quite unmoved : 

' ' Well, sir, I have taken this responsibility so 
far, and I intend to continue taking it to the end ; 
and if you do not choose to take the same re- 
sponsibility, you will have to be a Baptist; that 
is all there is of it." 

Just then the church bell rang, and our inter- 
view ended. We went into the pulpit together, 
and in due time he unrolled his manuscript and 
read a very beautiful sermon on "The Condi- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 9 1 

tions of Growth in Grace." In eloquent periods 
he insisted that every Christian should keep his 
mind open to the truth; no matter whence it 
might come, no matter how unpopular it might 
be, no matter how unpalatable it might be to 
him. He dwelt, in glowing sentences, on the 
necessity of candor and impartiality in the in- 
vestigation of truth ; and heartiness in its recep- 
tion when once its claim to be received had been 
fairly vindicated. 

My people drank in the sermon much as a 
thirsty ox drinks in the cold water; thinking, 
doubtless, "What an earnest, heroic truth-lover 
is this! Would that we were more like him! " 

And I listened, fairly dazed and overwhelmed. 
"How can he point out the way so clearly,'' 
thought I, ' ' and at the same time refuse to walk 
in it himself! Does he not know that every sen- 
tence he utters condemns his own practice? Is 
he not an arrant, determined hypocrite? Oh, 
God ! is there truth among men ? Can I ever 
again have any confidence in men?" 

It was, to me, a severe ordeal, indeed; and I 
was exceedingly glad when the service ended, 
and I was at liberty to return home. But I car- 
ried with me a burdened heart, and resumed my 
studies in deep sorrow. 

And, yet, as the days moved on, I found in 



92 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

my soul a growing purpose to meet the issue 
manfully. I would "buy the truth, and sell it 
not." No matter what it cost, I would have it, 
if attainable. Did not Jesus say, "If ye abide 
in my word, then are ye truly my disciples ; and 
ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make 
you free?" Did he not pray, "Sanctify them in 
the truth; thy word is truth?" Did he not 
come into the world to "bear witness to the 
truth?" Does he not declare of himself, "I 
am .... the truth?" 

Why, then, should I shrink from the truth, 
and put my friendships among men above the 
truth of God ? To do so were to confess my- 
self disloyal to Christ, and unworthy of him. 
No; I will not do it. Whatever may come, I 
will be true to Christ; true to the great trust re- 
posed in me as a public teacher of gospel truth ; 
true to truth, which alone is imperishable ; true 
to my own conscience and to my own manhood. 
Thus the very utterances intended to frighten 
me away from the dangerous investigation served 
only to show me more distinctly the importance 
of it, and the urgent need of a fearless manliness 
and impartiality in conducting it. As an imme- 
diate result, I drew nearer to Christ, resting on 
him more completely than ever for the needed 
wisdom and strength ; and, assured of his favor 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 93 

and guidance, entered into the examination be- 
fore me with greater zeal and resolution than 
ever. 

Presently one of my brethren came to me 
and said: 

"I had a conversation with Rev. Dr. S 

on our way home from church Sabbath morning, 
respecting your case." 

"Indeed," said I; "tell me about it." 

"Well," he replied, "I inquired whether, in 
his opinion, there is any good reason why you 
should be so troubled about baptism. 

"He said: 'No, none whatever; the matter 
is all plain enough.' 

"Then I said: 'Bro. S , can sprinkling 

and infant baptism be clearly proven from the 
Bible?' 

' ' 'Certainly, ' said he, ' there is no doubt about 
it at all. ' 

"That encouraged me greatly, and I said: 

1 Bro. S , I am glad it is so ; and I want you 

to give me the proof-texts, so that I can show 
them to our pastor ; for we love him and do not 
want to lose him.' 

"'Well,' said he, 'the fact is, I am a little 
rusty on this subject just now, for I have not 
given it much attention for a long time, and 
therefore I can not comply with your request ; 



94 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

but when I get home I will send you a book 
which sets the matter in a clear light, and you 
can hand that to your pastor and request him to 
read it, and it will set him right. ' 

"I charged him not to forget it, and he as- 
sured me he would not. I expect the book in a 
few days, and when it comes, I will send it to 
you immediately, and I want you to read it very 
carefully; for, my dear brother, we want you to 
remain with us. We can not spare you." 

I promised to read the book with great care, 
as soon as possible, and he went away very hope- 
ful about the result. In a day or two after this 
interview the book came, and I sat down at once 
to a diligent study of it. I had already exam- 
ined a large number of books written in defense 
of sprinkling and infant baptism, but this one I 
had never seen. I gave it three earnest, search- 
ing examinations, going over each sentence, each 
time, with the greatest care, hoping I might 
somewhere discover some ground of hope of a 
final vindication — or, at least, of a reasonable 
excuse for our practice in baptism. Alas ! I was 
keenly disappointed ; the book was weaker than 
any I had before read. It abounded in misin- 
formation, false statements and transparent soph- 
istry. 

Taking my pencil, I wrote in a fly-leaf: "I 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 95 

have read many defenses of our baptismal prac- 
tices, all of them defective and inconclusive at 
best, but this exceeds all others in weakness and 
wickedness, abounding, as it does, in statements 
which the author must have known were false 
when he wrote them; and in pretended argu- 
ments which he must have known were trans- 
parent sophistries, at the very moment he penned 
them;" and then returned the book to my friend. 
Now I am not an accuser of the brethren, 
but I venture this remark : That the mass of 
our pedobaptist brethren are not very unlike 
my friend, Rev. Dr. S . They would prob- 
ably shrink from a plain avowal of the fact — but 
still it is a fact — that they do not examine this 
matter candidly, impartially and exhaustively. 
Among the multitudes of pedobaptist brethren 
whom I have the honor to know, more or less 
intimately, I can not recall five who have ever 
given this subject an honest, thorough examina- 
tion. If a pedobaptist brother is indignant at 
this statement, and disposed to challenge its ac- 
curacy, let him stand up, and in the presence of 
God solemnly affirm that he has himself given 
it a full, candid and thorough investigation. And 
if he can do that, then let him name four others 
— pedobaptist ministers — who dare make the 
same solemn affirmation for themselves; and 



g6 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

after he has done that, then let him assail my 
statement, if he deems it wise to do so. The 
truth is, the strongest defense of sprinkling and 
infant baptism that can be written by mortal man 
will not bear an honest, critical examination, and 
the long history of attempted defenses is only a 
sad recital of so many able failures. 

Learning in the dear school of an experience 
so painful, the leaders of the pedobaptist forces 
have adopted new and peculiar tactics — tactics 
admirable, perhaps, among the various devotees 
of the pagan idols, but sadly out of place and 
out of character among a Christian people — the 
tactics of indifference. 

"Oh, it is no matter. One way is as good as 
another." "No, I never took the trouble to 
investigate baptism. It is not worth while. It 
is only a form, anyway."* "No, thank you, I 
will not try to study this question. Sprinkling 
will do just as well as immersion, and I like it a 
great deal better; and I am satisfied." "No, 
I don't care about baptism. It's only a form, 
and I prefer the realities of religion." "Oh, 
baptism is nothing. I do not think about it. I 
believe in holiness and communion' with Jesus. 
That's enough for me. " "Well, we are all going 
to the same heaven, and it don't matter what 
road we take, so we get there." 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 9/ 

These, and a thousand more of similar tenor, 
are the expressions which greet you from the 
lips of the laity of pedobaptist churches when 
you press the command of Christ upon them, 
and insist that they ought to obey it in the only 
way possible, by being duly immersed. And 
they all mean just one thing — indifference to 
his command. And their pastors, as a rule, en- 
courage this spirit of indifference, telling them 
it really makes no sort of difference whether 
they are sprinkled or immersed ; yet, at the 
same time, taking care to favor sprinkling with 
all the weight of their sacred office. 

Now, these things are true beyond contradic- 
tion ; they are not fancies, but sober, sad facts, 
which I do not invent, but simply chronicle. If 
any man says I am impeaching the characters of 
good men, he is mistaken. I do not impeach 
them ; but the facts — for which they alone are 
responsible, the facts of their own conduct — 
these impeach them. And I respectfully sub- 
mit that Jesus himself impeaches them in these 
solemn words, "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, 
and do not the things that I say?" 

On a certain Monday morning the pastors of 
the various churches in a certain city were chat- 
ting together freely in the Ministers' Association, 
when the Presbyterian minister introduced the 
7 



98 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

subject of baptism by asking the Baptist minister 
whether he would be willing to immerse a mem- 
ber of the Presbyterian congregation, with the 
understanding that the person so immersed would 
become a member of the Presbyterian Church. 

The Baptist minister, in reply, expressed a 
desire to be neighborly; but stated that he could 
not afford to take in washing; yet he would 
cheerfully lend his baptistery (the mill-race) to 
his Presbyterian brother, who could then baptize 
the candidate himself. 

This brought on a general talk on the subject 
of baptism, when the Methodist Episcopal min- 
ister made this remarkable statement: "I have 
long noticed that when any one of our ministers 
undertakes to investigate this question of bap- 
tism, he is sure to come out a Baptist." 

There you have it. Investigation makes men 
Baptists. Given an earnest man, intent on learn- 
ing the bottom facts ; let him enter upon a vig- 
orous search for the truth, and the result is ever 
the same — he comes out a Baptist. . 

Evidently, then, those who are determined to 
persist in sprinkling — and in the sprinkling of 
infants — and to build up churches adhering to 
those practices, are obliged to discourage inves- 
tigation. But this can not safely be done openly. 
If you tell an American he must not investigate 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 99 

this or that — no matter what — then he will sure- 
ly arise and investigate that thing- at all hazards. 
You have trenched upon his liberty, or chal- 
lenged his curiosity, and he will let you know 
that he can investigate. No ; that will never do. 
Open hostility to the investigation of this bap- 
tismal question would explode every pedobaptist 
church in America in ten years. 

There is a better way. Treat it as a small 
matter; the average American despises small 
matters. Laugh at it as a ridiculous thing; the 
true American has a keen sense of the ridicu- 
lous. Turn away from it as a frivolous matter 
— as one who has far more urgent and earnest 
work to do ; the typical American is an intensely 
earnest worker. Continually speak of it in terms 
of disparagement, as a thing of no importance 
whatever, an affair of no interest any way, and 
tell the people it is a matter of indifference to 
you how it goes. Do these things, and multi- 
tudes will say: "There, that's the talk. Who 
wants to waste time on little ridiculous, frivolous, 
indifferent matters?" Now, I say not one word 
of the motives of our pedobaptist leaders; but 
that in these last sentences I have faithfully por- 
trayed their actual conduct in respect to baptism, 
and the evident effects of that conduct, no sane 
man, blest with two good eyes, two faithful ears, 



IOO BEHIND THE SCENES. 

and an honest heart, will care to deny. And if 
any man does deny it, let him remember that 
facts are stubborn things; and that the facts 
that I have described abound in every commu- 
nity in this Christian land, and that they speak 
in a voice no man can drown, and tell a tale no 
man can disprove. And let him also remember 
that he who fights against the evidence of facts 
enters upon a hopeless task. He engages in a 
bootless struggle and wages a foolish war, in 
which his crushing defeat is only a question of 
time. In his case, prudence is the better part 
of valor. For him no valid defense is possible. 
What, then, must be the motive underlying 
this policy of indifference ? Is it, as many claim, 
a high degree of spirituality? But what sort of 
spirituality is it that ignores the words of Christ? 
What is the nature and source of that spiritual- 
ity which scorns to inquire after the true sense of 
his words? How much of Christ is there in that 
spirituality which openly brands his own ordi- 
nance as a mere form ? which jeers at it as a small 
thing? which pompously holds a faithful admin- 
istration of it as a matter of ridicule? which 
boldly proclaims obedience to his word a matter 
of indifference? Is there one sane man who 
dare pretend that such spirituality is inspired 
by the Holy Spirit? Think you the Holy Spirit 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 101 

prompts men to cast contempt upon a command 
of Christ? I tell you, Nay. That spirituality 
which moves men to treat the word of Christ 
with indifference is nOt from above. The spirit 
that generates it is from beneath. The Holy 
Spirit takes the things of Christ and shows them 
to his people, that they may love them, honor 
them and do them. It prompts to obedience 
to Christ, to tender regard for his slightest wish. 
It is another spirit that leads men to hold up to 
ridicule a solemn ordinance, instituted by the 
express command of our Lord. It is a spirit 
far from holy that prompts men to treat that or- 
dinance as a mere form, and its proper observ- 
ance as a matter of indifference. "Try the spir- 
its whether they are of God." A spirituality 
that pretends to pit love against obedience, that 
is too loving to obey, is simply a fraud. It 
comes not from heaven, but from earth and hell-; 
and its essence is neither less nor more than an 
intense selfishness. These words may seem se- 
vere, and they may burn in some hearts, but 
they are true ; and God give them pungency. 

No ; such spirituality as pleads for indifference 
to a command of Christ is not, and can not be 
genuine. It is a selfish counterfeit, and its great 
purpose is to shield an indefensible practice from 
an honest, searching investigation. It is the 



102 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

countersign of indifference, the only remaining 
citadel of those figments of popery — sprinkling 
and infant baptism. The moat around that cit- 
adel is the last ditch of pedobaptism, and the 
leaders know full well that it is their last line 
of defense. So long as men do not investigate, 
the cherished inventions of men are safe; but 
when they begin in real earnest to ask, ' ' What 
is truth?" then the days of those idols are num- 
bered. 

Aye ; there's the rub. Do not think for your- 
self, my pedobaptist friend. It is dangerous; 
for "If you are determined to go to the bottom of 
this mattery you will come out a Baptist — there is 
no help for that ." 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 103 



NUMBER VIII. 



' ' Well, that is the way all those German scholars 
write on baptism, but we think they are mis- 
taken." 

About six weeks after I began the study of 
baptism I received a most comforting letter from 

Rev. Mr. S , a Presbyterian minister. He was 

a very dear friend, and having heard of my 
troubles he wrote me, expressing a profound 
sympathy with me in my search after truth. He 
said that, after all, my trials in respect to bap- 
tism were nothing new in the experience of 
pedobaptist ministers. He said that at some 
period of his ministry almost every one of our 
ministers encountered the same doubts which 
were now harassing me. He said he had passed 
through the same ordeal years before, and re- 
membering his own sufferings at that time, he 
greatly desired to be of some service to me. He 
reminded me of the fact that he had a large 
library, much larger than mine ; that he was 
much older than myself, and that he was, there- 
fore, in a position to give me real, substantial 



104 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

aid in my investigation. He then earnestly in- 
vited me to visit him at his home, where we 
could go over the whole subject together, aided 
by the helps in his large collection of books. He 
also desired me, if I accepted his invitation, to 
send him immediately a brief statement of the 
points upon which I was in doubt, that he might 
review them and be the better prepared to aid 
me on my arrival. He closed by assuring me 
that he desired me to make my investigation 
thorough, and that if, as the result of it, I felt it 
my duty to go to the Baptists, I should go with 
the earnest prayers of himself and all the brethren 
for my prosperity, usefulness and happiness. 

It was a noble letter, doing great honor to the 
heart and the head of the writer. I read it with 
great delight, and hastened to accept his gener- 
ous invitation and proffered aid. I sent him a 
statement of the doubts besetting me, and named 
a time some weeks ahead, when I would visit 
him, should a kind Providence permit. The 
visit required a long journey — one hundred and 
fifty miles, mostly by private conveyance. But 
at the appointed time I started in high spirits, 
feeling sure of relief, and in due time arrived at 
the residence of my friend. It was a farm-house 
in a most beautiful valley ; a lovely retreat. 

The family gave me a hearty welcome and 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 105 

immediately called my friend. He was in the 
field, superintending the labors of some work- 
men. Coming to the house, he greeted me with 
great warmth, making me feel entirely at home. 
It was about eleven o'clock of the forenoon, and 
he begged to be excused an hour, as his pres- 
ence was needed in the field to give further 
directions to his men. 

1 'After dinner," said he, "I will be at your 
service constantly, as long as you may need 
me." 

Of course I excused him, but being anxious 
to improve every moment in study, and having 
been tendered the free run of his library, I begged 
him to name the best author on baptism, that I 
might study him until the dinner hour. In re- 
sponse to this request he assured me that the 
very best work in his library was Christian 
Knapp's " Systematic Theology." Entering 
the library I soon found the book, and turning 
to the article on baptism, I was instantly almost 
paralyzed with astonishment. For this great 
pedobaptist scholar and theologian began by 
affirming distinctly and positively all that the 
Baptists claim, and continued by proving the 
truth of those affirmations. In a word, his article 
on baptism is substantially the same as that of 
Storr and Flatt, which is quoted largely in 



106 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

another part of these sketches. To sum it all 
up, Christian Knapp assured me that the original 
baptism was the immersion of the body in water, 
and that the change to sprinkling is a matter of 
regret. And chis is the best author in defense 
of sprinkling in the library ! And what is the 
sum of his defense? Why, this — and this only 
— that a change has unfortunately been made, 
but that to set aside this invention of men and 
return to apostolic practice involves too much 
trouble. It was a plain confession that sprink- 
ling has no warrant in the word of God ; that it 
is, indeed, nothing less than rank disobedience 
to the command of Christ ; but that, all things 
considered, it is better to continue to disobey 
the Master than to face the difficulties sure to 
arise among the brethren if we return to the 
practice of the baptism he commanded — immer- 
sion. 

Presently my friend returned from the field. 
I met him at the door, greatly agitated, and at 
once told him what I had found in Christian 
Knapp. And this was his reply : "Well, that 
is the way all those German scholars write on 
baptism, but we think they are mistaken." If I 
was astonished before, I was fairly confounded 
now. This was help with a vengeance. How 
long, at this rate, would it take to vindicate the 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 107 

apostolic character of sprinkling ? All the pedo- 
baptist writers of Germany confessing it an in- 
vention of men! All of them agreeing that 
Christ enjoined immersion ; that the apostles and 
primitive Church practiced it ; that it continued 
the practice of the whole Church for many ages ! 
All of them affirming that it was supplanted by 
sprinkling, not only without divine authority, 
but against the example and the plain, explicit 
command of Christ ! 

It is true that my friend had said, ' ' We think 
they are mistaken." But had he not just in- 
dorsed Christian Knapp, one of these same 
German scholars, as the best authority on bap- 
tism in his library? What could it all mean? 

I was greatly perplexed, but I decided to keep 
quiet and wait for further developments. I did 

not have long to wait. After dinner Mr. S 

informed me that on the receipt of my paper 
containing a statement of the points on which I 
was in doubt, he began to look into the matter, 
but very soon found that he had grown rusty on 
the whole subject, and that he could not do 
justice to it. He had, therefore, taken the 

liberty to hand my paper to Rev. J. H , a 

Presbyterian minister residing in the next village, 
some two and a half miles distant. He informed 
me that Rev. J. H was a very venerable 



108 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

man— over seventy years of age ; that he was 
also a man of very fine culture and fervent piety. 
He also assured me that he was thoroughly 
posted on the whole question of baptism, having 
just completed a full examination of it, to satisfy 
himself that he was really a baptized man. He 
also informed me that this was the third time 

since he entered the ministry that Rev. J. H 

had thoroughly investigated the whole matter to 
satisfy his own doubts, and that now he was fully 
satisfied and firmly established in the belief that 
sprinkling and infant baptism are right and en- 
tirely scriptural. He ended by requesting me to 
go with him to see Rev. J. H -, who was ex- 
pecting me and would cheerfully render me all 
needed aid in searching for the truth. 

I went with him and received an introduction 
to the aged and venerable gentleman. I found 
him a person of the most prepossessing appear- 
ance, a man of large stature, commanding 
presence, a fresh, ruddy countenance, pene- 
trating eyes and snowy locks. I soon discovered 
that he was a fluent talker, and that he was very 
fond of talking. After a brief general conversa- 
tion Mr. S departed, inviting me to return to 

his house in the evening. 

Rev. J. H occupied an arm-chair in the 

middle of a very pleasant sitting-room, with his 



BEHIND THE SCENES. IO9 

feet resting on a stool. I sat upon a hassock at 
his feet, and, looking up into his genial face, I 
said: " I come to you as a child comes to his 
father, seeking instruction. In me you have a 
willing pupil, anxious to be convinced that our 
practice respecting baptism is right and scrip- 
tural ; but anxious above all things to find out 
the truth and do it, even though it should require 
great sacrifices at my hands." 

In reply, he commended my desire for instruc- 
tion in the truth and promised me the fullest 
satisfaction, telling me he had not a vestige of 
doubt that our views and practices were right, 
nor did he doubt his ability to convince me fully 
of their entire correctness. 

He then launched into a general talk on the 
subject of sprinkling and the baptism of infants, 
continuing, without interruption, three hours and 
a half. He then stopped, saying he was weary, 
but if I would return the next day he would 
discuss the subject more fully. Thanking him 
for his kindness, and promising to call on him 
in the afternoon of the next day, I rose and re- 
turned to the residence of Rev. Mr. S . 

The next afternoon I called on Rev. J. H , 



according to promise. At five o'clock I resumed 
my seat on the hassock at his feet, asking him 
to answer three questions, as soon as convenient, 



IIO BEHIND THE SCENES. 

assuring him that if they were satisfactorily dis- 
posed of, I could get along with all other matters 
related to the subject, and remain cheerful and 
contented in the pedobaptist ranks. He agreed 
to reply to them directly, and resumed his talk. 

At six o'clock I ventured to interrupt him, 
and remind him of his promise to reply to my 
questions. 

He bade me be silent, saying I need not 
imagine he could not answer them ; that he would 
do so presently. 

He talked on until seven o'clock, without 
making any allusion to my questions, and then 
I ventured once more to call his attention to 
them, and to request some definite reply. 

Somewhat impatiently he bade me keep still, 
that he would reply to my questions in a short 
time ; and again I subsided, and he talked on. 

At eight I again called his attention to the 
questions I had submitted, and which he had 
promised to answer, and earnestly besought him 
to gratify me by an immediate reply to them. 

With great impatience he told me I must not 
presume to dictate to him, that he would answer 
my questions in a short time ; but that mean- 
time I must permit him to take his own way. 

I bade him go on his own way, and assured 
him that I would not interrupt him again. 



BEHIND THE SCENES. Ill 

He then resumed his talk, talking on until 
half-past twelve o'clock, but without even attemp- 
ting any reply to my questions. About twelve., 
o'clock he gravely informed me that baptizo 
might properly enough be translated to drown. 

That was a little too much for my self-control, 
and looking him firmly in the eye, I said : 

"Are you willing, reverend sir, to risk your 
reputation as a scholar on that statement ? " 

" Well, no," said he, "you needn't take it so 
seriously. I was only half in earnest." 

At half-past twelve he informed me that he 
had nothing more to say on the subject ; that if 
I was not convinced by what he had already 
said, I probably could not be convinced at all, 
and ended by intimating a desire to know how 
his talk had impressed me. 

I replied that the desire was a natural and 
proper one, which it would give me great pleasure 
to gratify. 

"You have certainly proved yourself a fluent, 
shrewd talker, " said I, ' ' and have given evidence 
of a thorough acquaintance with the subject; and 
you have talked, in all, ten and one-half hours, 
but in all that time you have not produced 
one valid argument for your cause, not one 
argument worthy the name. You have dealt 
in witticisms, sophisms, evasions, and all man- 



112 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

ner of tricks, cute and sharp in many instances, 
but all of them too transparent to deceive a 
man of honest heart, open eyes, and an earnest 
purpose to find the truth. 

"A cause which can not produce one sound 
argument in a talk of ten hours and a half by a 
champion so devoted and so eloquent, must be 
very weak and doubtful, indeed. I came here 
earnestly hoping to be convinced that our bap- 
tismal doctrines and practices are right ; but your 
address has almost convinced me that they are 
wholly wrong, and that the much-abused Bap- 
tists are really in the right." 

I had risen from my hassock, and was stand- 
ing in front of him, looking at him with great 
earnestness, not unmingled with some degree of 
indignation at the manner in which he had trifled 
with me, for no man feels flattered at the dis- 
covery that another has endeavored to dupe 
him. 

He was greatly excited and deeply angered by 
my plainness of speech, and replied with crush- 
ing severity: 

' ' The Lord always knew there would be some 
people gotten up on a scale so narrow and bigoted 
that they could not be anything but Baptists, 
and so he instituted the Baptist Church for their 
benefit ; and it is plain that you are one of that 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 113 

number, and so you will have to go and join 
them." 

' ' Since you acknowledge that the Lord insti- 
tuted the Baptist Church," I replied, "you will 
do well to be careful how you fight it." 

This ended the discussion, and we went into 
his library and selected an armful of books on 
baptism, which I took home with me to examine, 
afterward returning them to him by express. I 
studied them very thoroughly, but it was of no 
use. The truth became every day more evident, 
and I was obliged to accept it, or prove myself 
false to my solemn vows, and false to my Lord. 
My Bible, honestly construed, was a Baptist 
Bible, and I could not make it countenance 
sprinkling or justify the baptism of unconscious 
babes. 

I therefore tendered my resignation as pastor 
of the Congregational Church, assigning, as my 
reason for doing so, the decided change in my 
views respecting baptism. It was sorrowfully 
accepted, and I soon became identified with the 
Baptists. 

Years have passed since then — years of con- 
stant Bible study, and of faithful, earnest toil in 
the Master's vineyard. They have brought with 
them varied experiences and great changes, and 
8 



114 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

enlarged views of Bible truth and of Christian 
duty. 

I am rapidly turning gray, and very soon men, 
judging by my whitened locks, will begin to call 
me old ; but my Bible (Authorized Version of 
King James) is still a Baptist Bible. And I have 
long since learned that God owns his own ordi- 
nance, when administered in his own way, as he 
does not own the sprinkling of infants or of 
adults. 

Those German pedobaptist scholars still con- 
tinue to write in defense of immersion, as the 
real, original and scriptural baptism, and their 
example seems somewhat contagious, for French, 
and Scottish, and English and American pedo- 
baptist writers are coming, more and more every 
year, to do the same thing. 

And yet brethren, like my friend, Rev. Mr. 

S , "rusty" brethren, are of the opinion that 

they are mistaken. And this is only too natural, 
for there is no other confidence quite so immov- 
able as the confidence of willful ignorance. 

Such rusty minds will continue rusty to the 
end, for they are entrenched in their own firm 
resolve to remain as they are. If you do not 
care to let in the sunlight, close the blinds, shut 
out the golden beams, and rejoice in the glimmer 



BEHIND THE SCENES. I I 5 

of a tallow taper ; but know assuredly that the 
sun will flood the earth with light, clothe it with 
verdure and beauty, and fill it with life and love- 
liness, despite your tallow taper and your closed 
shutters. 

Shutting out the light of truth does not pay 
any better than shutting out the light of the sun. 
It can have only one result. Sooner or later it 
must bring moral blight. God is the God of 
truth, and those who would be his must love 
the truth, and welcome it, and walk in the light 
of it. I accuse no man, but to me it is a strange 
thing that so many cling persistently lo prac- 
tices, in the name of the Lord, which are not 
required by his Word — nay, which are known, 
beyond any reasonable doubt, to be neither less 
nor more than the inventions of men. 

Religious conservatism, within proper bounds, 
is a good thing; but when it prompts men to 
cherish error and reject the truth, it has become 
a foe to all true piety and Christian growth. 



Il6 BEHIND THE SCENES. 



NUMBER IX. 



* ' Why, sir, I am surprised to hear you speak in 
such terms of that book. It 's a grand book, 
sir: a grand book. It has no equal. Its 
arguments are altogether una?tswerable." 

1 i Well, to be honest about it, I must confess I have 
not read the book myself. I formed my opin- 
ion of it from the testimony of others." 

A month or so after I began the earnest study 
of baptism, I called to see the pastor of the 
Congregational Church in a neighboring city. 
He was not at home, so I left word with his 
wife that I was in trouble, and that if he had 
any light on the subject of baptism, I desired 
him to let it shine for my benefit as soon as pos- 
sible. In a few days he sent me a new work 
on the subject, from the pen of a celebrated di- 
vine, and I hailed it with great joy, for I had 
heard much about it, and I hoped to find in its 
pages the needed light and relief. 

So I entered at once upon the study of it. 
At the outset, the author, with his characteristic 
candor, declared that all previous defenses of 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 117 

sprinkling were failures, and that if the classic 
sense of baptizo is to be accepted as the New 
Testament sense of it, there is an end of all dis- 
cussion, and any defense of sprinkling is simply 
impossible, since the word in classic Greek al- 
ways means to immerse. Hence, unless it can 
be shown that in the New Testament Greek it 
has another meaning, we might as well surrender 
at once, and confess that, after all, the Baptists 
are fight. 

But the author knew a better way than that. 
He had made a remarkable discovery — a discov- 
ery destined to overthrow the Baptists utterly, 
and settle the controversy forever. By some 
means he had found out a fact hitherto univer- 
sally overlooked, namely, that, in the New Test- 
ament Greek, the word baptizo, with all its de- 
rivatives, is used in a sense altogether foreign 
to its meaning in the classic Greek ; that, while 
in the latter the word always means to immerse, 
in the former it never means to immerse, but al- 
ways means to purify. 

Had I been less eager to find some sort of 
defense for sprinkling, the very audacity of the 
author might have put me on my guard. It 
would, doubtless, have seemed very strange that 
a fact so important had been so long overlooked 
by such a vast throng of earnest, able, critical 



Il8 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

students of the Bible. It would have seemed 
almost incredible that the hosts of lynx-eyed 
controversialists had for generations failed to 
notice a fact so vital, and so easily observed. 
Indeed, had I not been extremely anxious to 
find it true, I must have regarded it with sus- 
picion, as in a high degree improbable ; a state- 
ment to be labeled, ■" Important, if true," and 
to be received only when established by the most 
satisfactory evidence. 

But I must confess that I hardly thought of 
these and correlated considerations. On the 
contrary, I swallowed the whole thing at once, 
rejoicing that at last I had found relief, and that 
I had got out of the current in which I had been 
drifting, and landed safe and sound on the pedo- 
baptist shore. So, with a light heart, I plunged 
into the study of the book, not so much to dis- 
cover the truth or falsity of the author's erro- 
neous pretensions, as to learn the fact he assert- 
ed for myself, and to prepare myself successfully 
to assert and defend it. But, alas ! for our plans, 
our hopes, our weaknesses! especially if they 
are pedobaptistic. A great poet says : 

"The best laid plans o' mice and men 
Gang aft agley," 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 19 

and I found his words even more truthful than 
poetic. 

The book — a large one — was an utter failure. 
The writer said many beautiful things. The 
book was full of pen-pictures, entertaining, elo- 
quent, pathetic, but destitute of argument. The 
grand postulate with which the writer opened so 
boldly was not proven. That was bad — a wet 
blanket to my fever of hope — but that was not 
the worst of it. Long-continued and searching 
study of the book convinced me that it was en- 
tirely false. The writer proposed to prove that 
the word baptizo, with all its derivatives, is used 
in the Scriptures in the sense of to purify ; but 
instead of proving that, he proved that it is not 
so used. How shall I describe my disappoint- 
ment, the deep humiliation and bitterness of it? 
I can not do it. It was crushing. 

But, after a little, I gathered new courage to 
go through the book again, in the faint hope 
that I might yet find some different result. So 
I plodded through it again and again, only to 
be more firmly assured that the author had not 
only failed to establish his proposition, but had 
fairly proven exactlv its opposite to be true. 
The Baptists could hardly desire a better vindi- 
cation of their views than this book, the su- 



120 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

preme effort of one of their most talented op- 
ponents. 

I turned from it, almost sick at heart, yet not 
willing to confess myself vanquished. So I 
gathered about me the works of many other 
authors in defense of sprinkling and infant bap- 
tism, and continued my laborious investigation. 

While thus engaged, Rev. G. S , the Con- 
gregational pastor, who sent me the book which 
I had found such a painful, yet. splendid failure, 
came to visit me, and aid me in my study. He 
was a lovely man, a very dear friend, and I gave 
him a most hearty welcome. Of course, our 
conversation was of the one theme which then 
so imperiously challenged my attention — bap- 
tism. 

I showed him a letter from Rev. Mr. C , the 

Presbyterian minister who, years before, had 
lectured me so vigorously and so successfully on 
the unscripturalness and destructive tendency of 
open communion — an incident elsewhere de- 
scribed in these sketches. He read the letter 
in great astonishment, for it was a lengthy and 
pathetic warning against the Baptists because of 
their offensive close communion. He who had 
so energetically pictured the wickedness and 
folly of open communion, and had so heartily 
supported and commended close communion as 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 121 

scriptural and wise, now bewailed my tendency 
toward the Baptists ; not because their views of 
baptism were wrong, for that he did not affirm, 
but because of their " bigotry" in teaching and 
practicing the very same principles he had urged 
upon me, and which he himself had never ceased 
to defend and practice. 

My friend could hardly believe the evidence 
of his senses, as he read that remarkable letter ; 
but he knew the handwriting and style of the 
author too well to doubt the genuineness of it. 

I proposed this question: " If close commun- 
ion is scriptural and right for Presbyterians and 

Congregationalists,as our friend, Rev. Mr. C , 

so eloquently maintains, and as we all believe 
and teach, how can it be unscriptural and wrong 
for Baptists?" My friend agreed with me that 
it was not fair to condemn in Baptists that which 
we approved as right in our own practice. And 

although he was a warm friend of Rev. Mr. C , 

he did not hesitate to condemn his letter as an 
unmanly and unworthy attempt to influence me 
by an appeal to my prejudices. 

I knew my friend was very anxious to learn 
what influence the book he sent me had exerted 
upon my mind ; but I carefully refrained from 
any allusion to it, preferring that he should in- 
troduce the matter in his own way. 



122 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

At length, as we were seated at the tea-table, 
he could wait no longer, but bluntly inquired 
what I thought of the book which he had for- 
warded to me. 

I told him it was well written ; that the author's 
style was lively and entertaining, and that no 
one could deny that the book was readable. 

"But," said he, "what do you think of the 
argument? Isn't it convincing ? " 

"The argument!" I replied ; "why, my dear 
sir, I didn't find any in the book. As I told 
you, the book is .lively and entertaining, the lan- 
guage is very fine, and there are many eloquent 
passages in it ; but there is no argument there 
— not a bit of it. As an argument, it is an utter 
failure; doing great discredit to its author." 

"Why, sir," he replied, "I am surprised to 
hear you speak in such terms of that book. It's 
a grand book, sir — a grand book. It has no 
equal. Its arguments are altogether unanswer- 
able." 

Now I knew my friend had never read the 
book — at least, that particular copy of it — for 
when it came to me most of the leaves were 
uncut. So I quoted a passage from pages where 
I had cut the leaves, and inquired his opinion 
of that. 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 123 

"Tell me candidly, my friend, do you think 
that a sound argument ? " 

1 ' Well, no ; there is no argument in that. But, 
surely, you did not find that in Dr. B. 's book, 
did you?" . 

"Yes, sir; I found it in his book, on pages 
so and so, just as I give it to you." 

Then I proceeded to quote another passage 
from pages where I had cut the leaves, asking 
his opinion of that, and, as before, he respond- 
ed by condemning it as altogether unsound, but 
suggesting a doubt whether it was really in the 
book. To this doubt I responded as before, 
naming the pages where he would find it. Then 
I named another passage, and another, and still 
another, each of which was disposed of in the 
same way; the evident embarrassment of my 
friend increasing rapidly meanwhile, until at last 
he could endure it no longer. 

"Well," said he, "to be honest about it, I 
must confess I have not read the book myself. 
I formed my opinion of it from the testimony 
of others." 

Then we reviewed the book together, and he 
heartily indorsed my opinion, that, as an argu- 
ment, the book is an utter failure. 

But my amiable friend was not discouraged 
by the evident failure of the book he had relied 



124 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

upon so ignorantly and yet so confidently. He 
entered into a general discussion of the subject, 
endeavoring to convince me that, after all, sprink- 
ling is all right, as a social and climatic neces- 
sity, and our conversation continued until two 
o'clock in the morning. 

He called my attention to the fact — which I 
could not deny — that baptism is only an out- 
ward form. But when I reminded him that 
back of that outward form is the command of 
Christ enjoining it, and inquired by what author- 
ity I could set aside his command, he had no 
reply to offer. 

He assured me that sprinkling is much more 
convenient than immersion, and I was obliged 
to confess he was right about that. (To tell the 
whole truth about it, he had struck a tender 
spot, for one of the chief reasons why I so much 
dreaded to give up sprinkling and accept immer- 
sion was this very consideration of convenience. 
Immersion seemed an almost intolerable cross, 
from which I shrank with great dread day and 
night.) 

But when I reminded him that Christ knew as 
much about the inconvenience of immersion as 
we did, and begged him to tell me whether the 
plea of inconvenience could be relied upon as a 
valid excuse for a neglect of duty, or for a dis- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 125 

obedience to a command of Christ, he was silent. 

When he urged the greater popularity of 
sprinkling, I was obliged to admit it ; but when 
I inquired whether it would be safe to plead 
that popularity against the authority of Christ, 
he was again silent. 

Indeed, he soon agreed with me, that while 
it would be pleasant, in this matter, to follow 
the multitude, it would be safer, and far more 
Christ-like, to obey the Master, and do as he 
commands. 

He called my attention to the Arctic regions, 
and told me that immersion would not be pos- 
sible there on account of the intense cold. I 
replied : First, that we do not live in the Arctic 
regions, and therefore we can not plead the cli- 
matic condition of those regions as an excuse 
for not doing our plain duty here; and, second, 
that the narratives of Arctic explorers contain 
accounts of persons getting into the water amid 
the ice-floes, and remaining there much longer 
than would be needful for immersion, and that 
without the slightest injury. He conceded that 
this answer ended the Arctic argument, and, as 
a candid Christian man, he gave it up. 

He then called my attention to a certain Rev. 

Dr. B . He said that the doctor was once 

a prosperous, honored Presbyterian minister, 



126 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

but he became troubled about baptism, and final- 
ly joined the Baptists, and that he had stood in 
the water so much, baptizing converts, that his 
lower limbs were paralyzed, and he was a help- 
less cripple. 

"Well," said I, "if I could be assured of 
such success in my ministry — if God would only 
give me such a multitude of converts— -I would 
not hesitate a moment longer, but go* and join 
the Baptists at once, and suffer the loss of my 
limbs gladly." 

"Ah!" said my friend, "it is of no use to 
talk. You are sure to become a Baptist. It is 
only a question of time. I bid you godspeed 
in doing whatever you may decide is your duty. " 

This ended our discussion ; and the next day 
he returned home, and I returned to the study 
of the great question of duty. 

My friend fell into an error only too common 
—commending a book he had not examined, 
and indorsing an argument he had not tested for 
himself. He formed his opinion from the testi- 
mony of others. It was not a wise method, as 
the event proved ; but it was, and is, the method 
of multitudes. How few examine these matters 
for themselves ! The pew looks to the minister; 
the minister looks to some great doctor ; the 
doctor looks to the denomination, and writes 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 27 

as he best may in defense of its practice. And 
who constitute the denomination? Why, the 
pews and pulpits that are looking to the doctor 
for guidance and instruction. 

And when the doctor has written his defense 
of the views and practice of his denomination, 
the word passes along down the line that it is a 
most triumphant vindication of the truth. A 
few read it, and the rest form their opinion of it 
from the testimony of others. This is neither 
an accusation, nor a caricature, but a plain state- 
ment of an undeniable, though not very compli- 
mentary, fact, in the history of Christian life 
and doctrine. 

Nor are we to imagine it to be confined wholly 
to the various sects of pedobaptists. It is an 
evil not altogether unknown in Baptist circles. 
Far too many people are Baptists for no better 
reason than that their fathers were, or that some 
friends are — a very poor reason, indeed. 

How much better were it to do as did the 
noble Bereans, search and see whether these 
things are so ! It is the opinion of many good 
people that the Baptists are apt to give too much 
time and thought to these controverted ques- 
tions. In some cases that may be true — very 
likely it is true here and there ; but, as a rule, it 



128 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

is not true. The masses of Baptist people, and 
'even of Baptist ministers, are not as well posted 
in these matters as they ought to be. If every 
Baptist were at all times ready to give a reason 
for the peculiarities of his faith and practice, the 
truths underlying them would speedily receive 
a far wider recognition than they now do, and 
the period of their ultimate conquest of the 
Christian world would thereby be greatly has- 
tened. If they are worth contending for at all, 
they are worth contending for very earnestly. 
If it be not wrong to make them the basis of a 
separate organization, it is not wrong to study 
them thoroughly, and to propagate them vigor- 
ously and victoriously. 

Some people seem to imagine that all churches 
are alike, that there are no real differences be- 
tween them; and, doubtless, this is true of cer- 
tain classes of churches. It is difficult to detect 
any important issue at stake between the various 
denominations of Presbyterians, or between the 
various kinds of Methodists, or between the Con- 
gregationalists and Presbyterians. And it is real- 
ly a sad thing that brethren differing so slightly 
are yet so zealous to maintain separate organi- 
zations, with distinct and often antagonistic inter- 
ests, often producing painful and scandalous col- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 120, 

lisions, and unseemly rivalries and antagonisms. 
What is this but to divide the Church of God 
needlessly? and what is such needless division 
but schism ? 

Some people tell us such divisions are a good 
thing; but Jesus does not agree with them, for 
he prays earnestly that his people may all be 
one. The apostles did not think so, for they 
vigorously denounce schismatics, and bid us re- 
ject them. Let no one be deceived. Those 
who maintain needless divisions in the body of 
Christ are schismatics, guilty of a very great of- 
fense against our Lord and his Church. And 
if Baptist Churches are not based upon and de- 
manded by the divine Word, they are schismat- 
ics, and ought to disband. 

But if their existence is required by that Word, 
then all other churches are schismatic, and ought 
to dissolve. Or, in more general terms, every 
denomination ought clearly to justify its own 
existence by the authority of the Word of God, 
or cease to exist. No man can deny this except 
by calling in question the authority of the divine 
Word ; but, if it be true, then the faithful study 
of denominational peculiarities of doctrine and 
of practice, is a plain, imperative duty. It is 
not enough ; in controverted matters, to consult 
9 



130 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

one's neighbor, and form an opinion from the 
testimony of others. As honest Christian men, 
we are bound to search, and see, and know for 
ourselves. 



BEHIND THE SCENES. I3I 



NUMBER X. 



' ' They are a wicked family , and they want the 
babe baptized because they imagine that will 
save it. What shall I do t If I go down 
there and baptize it, I shall only confirm them 
in their mistaken views fespecting the saving 
efficacy of baptism ; but if I do not go, I shall 
offend them, and that I can not afford to do> 
for they are rich." 

" Well, I will iv alk down that way, and let Provi- 
dence decide the matter for me. 

While I was investigating baptism, and after 
I had reached the conviction that, whatever 
might be true of sprinkling, I must wholly desist 
from the practice of infant baptism, I exchanged 
pulpits with the pastor of the Congregational 
Church in a neighboring city. 

At the close of the morning service, Rev. 

Mr. R , a Congregational minister, who had 

charge of an academy in that place, came to me, 
saying that he was in great doubt respecting 
duty in an urgent case, and desired advice. 

He said he had received a message just before 



132 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

the morning service began, from an Episcopal 
family in the city, informing him that the 
youngest member of the family, a dear little 
babe, had been fearfully scalded, and that they 
desired him to come and baptize it. 

"And, " said he, "I do not know what to do 
about it. What is your opinion as to my duty 
in the matter?" 

"Well," I replied, "perhaps you will not 
think my advice of much value when I tell you 
that I have decided to baptize no more babes ? 
I am fully convinced that the practice is wrong, 
and, of course, my advice is to decline to do 
anything about it." 

"Oh, well, "said he, "I believe in infant bap- 
tism, of course. I have no doubt about its 
propriety, as a rule, but this case is very peculiar. 
They are a wicked family, and they want the 
babe baptized because they imagine that will 
save it. What shall I do ? If I go down there 
and baptize it, I shall only confirm them in their 
mistaken views of the saving efficacy of baptism; 
but if I do not go, I shall offend them, and that 
I can not afford to do, for they are rich." 

I repeated my advice that he should decline 
to baptize the babe, assuring him that I deemed 
that the only safe course. But he was not will- 
ing to accept such radical counsel. He seemed 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 133 

altogether irresolute and unwilling to act in any 
direction, and notwithstanding the urgency of 
the case, he continued to discuss the matter in a 
rambling, desultory sort of way. 

At last he intimated that the babe might 
possibly be out of its misery and beyond the 
need of baptism, and added, "Well, I will walk 
down that way, and let Providence decide the 
matter for me." 

Accordingly he moved off in the direction of 
the afflicted home, which was over half a mile 
distant. I remained near the church door, look- 
ing at him with strange emotions. He seemed 
determined to give Providence plenty of time to 
decide the matter for him, walking quite as slowly 
as a healthy, able bodied man could walk on 
such a beautiful autumn day, and on such excel- 
lent pavement. 

'At length he disappeared around the bend in 
the street, and I returned to my stopping place, 
wondering what the issue would be, and pitying 
the bondage of my friend, and, it may be, in- 
wardly rejoicing that I was about ready to re- 
nounce forever a practice of such doubtful 
character, by which a good man could be so 
hampered, and, as it were, compelled to walk a 
race against death — the slowest winning. 

After the evening service my friend came to 



134 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

me in excellent spirits. "Well, Bro. R /' 

said I, "how did Providence decide?" 

"All right," he replied. "When I reached 
the house, the dear babe had just departed, and, 
of course, that settled the matter." 

This incident made a deep impression on me ; 
especially did these words of Mr. R im- 
press me: " If I go down there and baptize it, 
I shall only confirm them in their mistaken views 
respecting the saving efficacy of baptism. " Did 
not his going down there, under the circum- 
stances, have precisely that effect ? They could 
not know the mental protest under which he was 
acting. They knew nothing of his hesitation 
about the propriety of the baptism in that family. 
They were in ignorance respecting his delay in 
starting. They had not seen him loitering by 
the way, in the hope that on his arrival the babe 
might be at rest. All these things were unknown 
to them. He had, indeed, arrived too late, but 
for that he had apologized in apparent sorrow. 
His presence was evidence of his willingness to 
perform the service desired. It was also proof 
that, in his judgment, that service was both right 
and necessary. They had a right henceforth to 
quote his response to their request as an endorse- 
ment of their views of infant baptism, and he 
could challenge that right only by a confession, 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 135 

at once insulting to them, and damaging to his 
own reputation as a man of thorough integrity. 

I do not doubt that he was afraid to baptize 
the babe, lest he might thereby confirm that 
wicked family in their mistaken views of the 
saving efficacy of infant baptism. But he lacked 
the manly decision and courage to take the only 
step by which he could escape such a result — a 
kind but firm denial of their request, and an 
honest statement of the true reason for it. 

But hold. Let me not be too severe. It was 
not altogether a lack of courage. He was an 
advocate of infant baptism — a man of mature 
years and broad scholarship. How could he 
deny the saving efficacy of a practice, which, 
after all, can be defended on no other plea? 
Imagine him saying to that wicked family, "No, 
I can not baptize your babe. You think there 
is a saving efficacy in such baptism, but that is a 
great mistake. You rely upon baptism for sal- 
vation, but it can not save you. In it there is 
no saving virtue. If I were to baptize your 
babe, the baptism would do it no good. It is a 
mere idle ceremony, very pretty and sentimental, 
but of no real use. Under other circumstances 
it would give me pleasure to apply it to your 
babe, but you take it altogether too seriously. 
You think it really means something — that it 



I36 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

will make your babe a partaker of the benefits 
of the covenant of grace, and thereby save it — 
that it is really circumcision in another form, 
and, therefore, necessary, lest your babe be cut 
off from all inheritance with God's people, and 
that it is essential to the putting away, or wash- 
ing away the stains of original sin. I admit that 
we are continually affirming these very things, 
and many others like them, in our attempts to 
defend infant baptism from the assaults of the 
Baptists, but then we do not really believe them 
ourselves. I beg you, do not be offended with 
me. I am in a very difficult spot. I do not 
want to go back on infant baptism, for it is a 
very useful contrivance, by which such of our 
children as live to mature years are pre-empted, 
as it were, for our own churches, but otherwise 
it is of no value whatever. As I have said, you 
take it altogether too seriously, and rest upon it 
for salvation ; and I dare not baptize your babe 
lest I encourage you in a delusion so deadly. I 
therefore beg you to excuse me from baptizing 
your babe, and please do not be offended with 
me, for I can not help myself; and, indeed, I 
desire your favor and patronage, for you are rich 
and influential." 

Now that would be a very strange speech, I 
grant you, but for thousands of Protestant min- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 137 

isters who practice infant baptism it would be 
an honest speech, or at least as honest as the 
case would admit. But what would a ' ' wicked 
family " be apt to say in reply? 

It is often claimed by Baptist writers that 
every possible plea for infant baptism involves 
the idea of a saving efficacy in the rite, and it 
would be difficult for the most ardent friend of 
the " institution " to name a half dozen pleas in 
its behalf that are not fairly open to this charge. 
Indeed, our pedobaptist friends of the more 
evangelical denominations are sadly in want of 
some plea for the practice which clearly does 
not involve the idea of sacramental salvation. 
There is one such plea, as I happen to know. I 
never saw it in print, but having heard it urged 
by more than one intelligent, cultured pedo- 
baptist minister, in defense of his own conduct 
in baptizing certain babes, I am very generously 
inclined to give all our pedobaptist friends the 
benefit of it. 

Some years ago, while I was pastor of the 

Baptist Church in the city of M , certain 

friends — members of the " Disciples " Church — 
came to me with certain well-founded complaints 
against pedobaptist ministers in our city ; com- 
plaints valid against a large share of the ministers 
of pedobaptist churches everywhere. 



I38 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

At the next meeting of our Ministers' Associa- 
tion I said to the brethren: "Our 'Disciples' 
brethren have a grievance of considerable mag- 
nitude. They complain of your conduct, in a 
certain matter, as wanting in a manly consist- 
ency." 

Instantly all were alert, two asking in the 
same breath: 

' ' Why ? What is it ? What have we done ? " 

"Well," I replied, "they assure me that 
whenever a babe is likely to die unbaptized, you 
rush off and sprinkle it — an act which plainly 
says that you believe in the saving efficacy of it; 
but when they affirm that you believe baptism 
to be essential to salvation, you go back on your 
own actions and say you do not believe any such 
thing; and they complain that in this matter 
you are lacking in a manly consistency." 

For a few moments there was an expressive 
silence in our midst; for several of the brethren 
had very recently sprinkled dying babes, and 
the facts were well known. The pastor of the 
Congregational Church was the first to break the 
solemn silence. 

"Well," said he, "I might as well own up. 

Mrs. sent for me in great haste to baptize 

her babe, which was about to die, and I did it. 
Of course I knew there is no saving efficacy in 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 39 

baptism. I knew it would do the babe no good 
whatever ; but the mother wanted it done, and 
I did it to please her." Then, after a moment's 
silence, he added: "Well, I am resolved that 
I will never do so again ; never." 

Then the pastor of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church said: 

' ' I was sent for, not long ago, by Mrs. 

under similar circumstances, and I went and 
baptized the child. Of course I know as well as 
any one that there is no virtue in baptism to 
save the soul — not a bit of it — but I did it to 
please the parents." 

Then another pastor made a similar explana- 
tion of his own conduct, giving the same plea, 
that "he did it to please the parents." Now I 
submit that this plea for infant baptism does not 
involve the idea of saving efficacy in it. On the 
contrary, it expressly discards all such notions. 
And it is certainly an amiable plea — "I did it 
to please the parents." A minister, no matter 
even if he were a Baptist, could not easily go 
farther in amiability than that. He knows the 
child, even in the presence of death, is just as 
well off without it ; and it can do the little sufferer 
no good — "not a bit of it" — in any way; and 
he, poor man, may be fairly overrun with work ; 
but he drops everything at once, and off he goes 



I4O BEHIND THE SCENES. 

to baptize that dear little dying babe. Now, if 
it were an adult, a penitent believer, that called 
for baptism, other motives might induce even a 
very busy Baptist minister to drop everything 
else and administer the ordinance, even amid 
the snow and ice and the chilling blasts of mid- 
winter. In fact, hundreds of Baptist ministers 
have gone out in the very worst weather to bap- 
tize people who were in no apparent danger of a 
speedy death. They have meekly stepped down 
into the freezing water, apparently surrounded 
by very many discomforts ; but they did it only 
because God required it of them. I do not 
believe one of them would ever do it ''just to 
please the parents " of the candidates, or to 
please any other friends. They are not amiable 
enough for that. In this peculiar kind of ami- 
ability our pedobaptist pastors excel. Not only 
do they often sprinkle babes " just to please the 
parents," but not infrequently they have been 
known to immerse people, and even such people 
as had been sprinkled in infancy, for the sole 
purpose of pleasing them. They certainly de- 
serve their reward for an amiability so compliant. 
Indeed, I think this plea, "I. did it to please 
the parents," ought to be used a great deal more 
freely by pedobaptist ministers. The Baptists 
could not charge that it implies a saving efficacy 



BEHIND THE SCENES. I4I 

in the rite. It is short and crisp as well as 
amiable. Everybody can understand it at once. 
It needs no labored explanation or learned de- 
fense. Then it is so definite in locating the 
authority in the matter with the parents, and in 
putting the responsibility upon them, that it 
leaves nothing more to be said. It classes infant 
baptism along with rattles, marbles and other 
toys, which one may or may not give to the 
child of his friend, just as the parent may fancy. 
Of course the parents must feel highly flattered. 
They are people to be " pleased." Here are 
grave and reverend pastors with no more sacred 
duty than just to "please" them. Here is a 
religious rite made entirely subservient to their 
pleasure.' If they like it — all right. It shall be 
artistically arranged at their bidding ; but if they 
do not like it, they need never have it in their 
houses. If they desire it for their little ones, it 
is a very beautiful Bible ordinance, which they 
can not prize too highly ; but if they are preju- 
diced against it, they may spit upon it and kick 
it out of sight, for it is only a bit of the rubbish 
of old-time church usages, you know. 

Here is flexibility for you ; just the sort, too, 
that the pedobaptist pastor needs now in every 
community. Take any pedobaptist pastor you 
please, Presbyterian, Congregational or Meth* 



142 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

odist, and while some of the members revere 
infant baptism as a Bible ordinance, others of 
them can hardly endure it at all. Jones and his 
wife say : " It is a blessed thing. So sweet, so 
beautiful, so sacred ! " And they have all the 
little Joneses duly christened ; and when the 
dear pastor calls there, the talk is largely of this 
beautiful, sentimental rite, and of the lt children 
of the church." But there is Bro. Miller. He 
abhors the whole thing, and his wife says: "No 
minister shall ever sprinkle a child of mine." 
And when the dear pastor ends his visit at the 
residence of Bro. Jones, and enters the home of 
Bro. Miller, he leaves infant baptism outside to 
take care of itself. Now, see how this plea helps 
him out. If he affirms that infant baptism is 
really a divine institution, he will feel obliged to 
defend it at Bro. Miller's and he will hardly fail 
to get into trouble; while Bro. Miller and his 
family, if he should become urgent in pressing 
them to obey it, will almost certainly go off and 
join the Baptists. But it is only a something to 
be done, or to be left undone, "to please the 
parents." So, at Bro. Jones', he pleases the 
parents by descanting upon its beauties ; and at 
Bro. Miller's he pleases the parents, and indeed 
the whole family, by quietly ignoring it alto- 
gether. Sarcastic? No, sir. Simply true to 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 143 

the actual condition of things in thou c ands of 
pedobaptist churches to-day. If any man doubts 
it, let him open his eyes and look about him a 
little, and he will doubt it no longer. Demoral- 
izing? Yes, but not more so than infant baptism 
itself. Not more so than any other defense of 
it. It does demoralize many men, but it also 
demoralizes infant baptism by degrading it into 
a mere bauble which intelligent and honest 
parents will soon learn to detest. 

But no matter what may be the tendency, or 
the result of this plea, it is the only practicable 
one left to those devotees of infant baptism who, 
in their hearts, do honestly discard the figment 
of sacramental salvation. If they retain infant 
baptism at all, it must be simply as a mere 
matter of taste, or as a well-understood expedient 
to retain their hold upon the children and in due 
time draw them into the same fold with them- 
selves. With these good people it is a time of 
transition and doubtful measures, but they are 
growing toward the truth and the light, and every 
year they become more evangelical, and in ex- 
actly the same ratio infant baptism declines 
among them. And the day is not far distant 
when they will cease to sprinkle babes, even "to 
please the parents." 



144 BEHIND THE SCENES. 



NUMBER XL 



' 'How can a man write as this man does, and still 
continue to practice sprinkling?" 

While pastor of the Baptist Church in the 
village of O , I received a call from the pas- 
tor of the Presbyterian Church, of a somewhat 
remarkable character. 

He was a quiet, pleasant gentleman, rather 
cool and reserved in manner, and a little inclin- 
ed to have his own way; i>ut honorable and 
noble, generous and kind. In his way he was 
something of a philosopher, taking life pleasant- 
ly and smoothly. He used to say, laughingly, 
that "while it may be wicked to get angry, yet 
a little holy indignation is sometimes quite nec- 
essary." But in all our acquaintance I had never 
seen him indignant at anything, until that par- 
ticular day already alluded to, when, to my great 
surprise, he was deeply agitated, and evidently 
very much offended. Without waiting to be 
seated, or even to remove his hat (he was usu- 
ally a polite man), he cried: "Sir, I called to 
ask you a question, and I want a direct answer 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 145 

— yes or no — and I will not be put off with any- 
thing else." 

It was a beautiful day, a day that Italy might 
possibly equal, but certainly could not excel. 
The wonderful blue of the upper deep — cloud- 
less and serene — seemed the very emblem of 
peace, itself a curtain vailing from mortal eyes 
the elysian fields just beyond. The earth re- 
posed in a loveliness and beauty fairly entranc- 
ing. It was a day for reveries, for poetic vis- 
ions and artistic dreams, and communings with 
Nature and Nature's God, amid the dim aisles 
of the grand old forests, God's earliest and ho- 
liest temples. But into the glowing harmonies 
of a scene so perfect, came crashing along this 
harsh, discordant note. What could it mean? 
Had a bolt of forked lightning and an earth-riv- 
ing peal of thunder fallen that instant from mid- 
heaven, I could have been but slightly more 
startled and astonished. The shock staggered 
me for a moment, but presently " Richard was 
himself again," and I gently prevailed on my 
friend to be seated. 

"Now, my dear brother," said I, when at last 
his hat was hanging gracefully on the rack, and 
he was settled nicely in my old study-chair; 
"now, my dear brother, ask as many questions 
as you please, and I pledge you an immediate, 
10 



I46 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

straight, categorical reply. I will say yes or no, 
or, I don't know, or whatever other word or 
words the nature of your question may require. 
Please say freely all you have it in your heart to 
say. ' ' 

Looking me straight in the eye, and relaxing 
none of his firmness and fierceness of manner 
and tone, he replied : 

"Sir, did you tell Elder W , a few days 

ago, that Dr. Lange translates Christ's word, 
baptizing, by immersing f Did you tell him, sir, 
that Lange translates John's words (Matt. iii". 1 1), 
' I indeed baptize you with water,' by the words, 
' I indeed immerse you in water? ' ' 

Returning his intense gaze with interest, I 

replied: "Yes, sir, I told Elder W all that, 

and more of the same sort." 

"Why did you do it?" said he, his voice 
trembling with excitement. 

"Because," I replied, "I thought he ought 
to know it." 

"Now, sir," said he, "do you not know that 
Lange is a pedobaptist, a prominent divine and 
theologian in the Lutheran Church in Germany? 
Do you not know, sir, that he practices sprink- 
ling?" 

"Certainly," said I, "that is all true; no one 
doubts it." 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 147 

"Yes," he replied, "no one doubts it; but 
how, then, dare you make such statements about 
him, as you confess you did make to a ruling 
elder of my church? How dare you say that 
he translates baptizo to immerse?" 

"Why, sir," I answered, "I dared to say it 
because it is true." 

"True! " he cried ; "true! you surely do not 
mean to persist in your strange statement, after 
confessing that he practices sprinkling?" 

"Why not," said I, "when it is true? As 
you claim, he does practice sprinkling, but he 
also translates baptizo, and its derivatives, to im- 
merse, and thereby confesses that Christ has com- 
manded him not to sprinkle but to immerse ; and 
I have a right to state the fact — it is a public 
matter." 

"I tell you," he replied, "there is some mis- 
take about this. Your statement can not be 
true. Dr. Lange is a good man, and a great 
man, and he would never do a thing so absurd." 

"Mr. K , " said I, "have you Dr. Lange's 

work on Matthew in your library?" 

"Why, yes, I have it," he replied. 

"Well, then," I rejoined, "why did you not 
examine it before coming here to accuse me of 
misrepresentation." 

"Why, sir," said he, "I knew it could not 



I48 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

be true; and I could not believe you had really 
said so; and I thought, 'I will just run in and 
ask him about it, and that will settle it. ' Of 
course, I might have looked into the book, as 
you say, but of what use would that be ? Dr. 
Lange is a Lutheran. He practices sprinkling 
habitually, and it is not possible that he trans- 
lates baptizo to immerse, for that would condemn 
his own practice." 

I did not reply to this; but taking Dr. Lange's 
work on Matthew from a shelf just behind me, 
I opened to Matt. iii. 1 1, and, handing the book to 

Mr. K , I bade him read for himself. Then, 

sitting down just in front of him, I watched his 
countenance as he read. 

Poor fellow! I really pitied him. He grew 
red and pale by turns; and no wonder, for there 
he not only read, "I indeed immerse you in wa- 
ter," but, also, "He that cometh after me . . . 
shall immerse you in the Holy Ghost and in fire ;" 
and then followed an elaborate explanation of 
immersion as the symbol of a complete regenera- 
tion, a change equivalent to a Death and a Res- 
urrection, and all that from the pen of a great 
and good man, who, contrary to his own trans- 
lation of the divine Word, was in the habit of 
sprinkling, instead of immersing, as the Lord 
commands. 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 149 

At last my friend looked up, the very picture 
of astonishment, and in a bewildered but em- 
phatic way, he said : 

"How can a man write as this man does, and 
still continue to practice sprinkling?" 

"Ah," said I, "that is the problem; but you 
see that I was correct, do you not ? You con- 
cede that my statements about this matter were 
true, do you not?" 

"Oh, yes," he replied, "your statements are 
true ; and I most heartily confess the gross in- 
justice I have so foolishly and unwittingly done 
you, and I earnestly beg your pardon for treat- 
ing you as I did. I am very sorry for it, in- 
deed." 

"Say no more about that, my dear brother," 
I responded. "I most heartily and fully for- 
give you, and I sympathize with you most deep- 
ly in your feeling of pain at the gross inconsist- 
ency of those men who frankly confess that Jesus 
enjoins immersion, and then coolly keep right 
on sprinkling in his name. Do you know what 
Dr. Chalmers says about immersion?" 

' ' No, sir ; I do not recollect that I ever saw 
it," he replied. 

I handed him " Chalmers' Lectures on Romans," 
opened at page 152, at the beginning of his lec- 
ture on Romans vi. 3-7, and here is what he 



I50 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

read from the pen of the greatest divine Scottish 
Presbyterianism ever produced : 

"The original meaning of the word baptism 
is immersion; and though we regard it as a point 
of indirTerency whether the ordinance so named 
be performed in this way or by sprinkling ; yet 
we doubt not that the prevalent style of the ad- 
ministration in the apostles' days was by an act- 
ual submerging of the whole body under water. 
We advert to this for the purpose of throwing 
light on the analogy that is instituted in these 
verses. Jesus Christ by death underwent this 
sort of baptism, even immersion under the sur- 
face of the. ground, whence he soon emerged 
again by his resurrection. We, by being bap- 
tized into his death, are conceived to have made 
a similar translation: in the act of descending 
under the water of baptism, to have resigned an 
old life ; and, in the act of ascending, to emerge 
into a second or a new life, along the course of 
which it is our part to maintain a strenuous 
avoidance of that sin which as good as expung- 
ed the being that we had formerly, and a stren- 
uous prosecution of that holiness which should 
begin with the first moment that we were ush- 
ered into our present being, and be perpetuated 
and make progress toward the perfection of full 
and ripened immortality." 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 15 I 

As my friend read these grand words of the 
great preacher, he seemed deeply troubled. At 
length he closed the book, saying, as he did so : 

"I can not understand it. How can a man 
write as these men do, and still continue to prac- 
tice sprinkling?" 

"Ah, my friend," I replied, "that is a very 
great mystery, but it is none the less a fact. If 
you will carefully look into the matter, you will 
find that nearly all of your great scholars, theo- 
logians and divines write substantially as these 
men write, and continue to practice substantial- 
ly as these men practice. I will not accuse them ; 
to his own Master must each of us answer. But 
there stands the fact, open, undeniable, and to 
me altogether unaccountable, that a great host 
of men — apparently wise and good men — con- 
tinue through life in open, plain, constant diso- 
bedience to the command of Christ, themselves 
being the judges. For if I affirm solemnly, and 
as a public teacher, that Christ commands me -to 
do a certain thing, and that his apostles habit- 
ually did that thing in obedience to his word, 
and that the doing of it inculcates the great, 
vital truths of Christianity — keeps them before 
the eye, as it were, in a solemn, religious tab- 
leau — and then I habitually refuse do what he 
has commanded, and, instead of doing that, do 



152 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

something else that he has not commanded, and 
do it, too, in his name, how can I deny that I 
am habitually disobeying him? 

' ' I know full well the plea . that these men 
urge in defense of their strange conduct — 'that 
sprinkling will do just as well;' but how do they 
know it will do just as well? His own plain 
command is a sure proof that Jesus did not 
think that sprinkling would do as well as immer- 
sion. In his judgment, immersion is best — is 
necessary to the end he has in view — or he would 
not require it. Did not he know all about the 
greater convenience of sprinkling? Did not he 
know all about the rigors of a northern winter, 
and how necessary it would often be to cut the 
ice in order to immerse? Did not he know as 
much about the liability of ladies' clothing to 
float on the water as do the men of this genera- 
tion, who so shamelessly urge it as an element 
of indecency? 

"If he did not, then who is he more than an- 
other man? But if he did, then who are these 
'great and good men' that sit in judgment on 
his command, and dare to condemn it as imprac- 
ticable, or unwise, or in bad taste? Who are 
these doctors who presume to tell us that sprink- 
ling, which Christ did not command, will do as 
well as immersion, which he did command? 



BEHIND THE SCENES. «• 153 

Whence did they gain this wisdom, that they may 
correct the judgment of the Lord? By what 
authority do they set aside the authority of the 
Christ, and tell us that obedience to his command 
is a matter of indifferency ? 

"Why, indifferency to the command of an 
earthly king would justly be regarded as crim- 
inal — a fault to be swiftly and severely punished 
— and we are coolly told that it is a matter of 
indifferency whether we obey Christ. 

"Who are these daring counselors, these bold 
innovators? 'Great men,' you say; wise men, 
educated men, good men — but men. However 
great, however wise, however educated, how- 
ever good ; they are, after all, men — only men. 

"Then these men — themselves being judges 
— ask us to choose between men and Christ. 
They set the Word of Christ before us; they 
make it so plain that no room is left for doubt 
about what he requires, and then they modestly 
tell us in words, or by their own action, that 
they know a better way. And that brings us 
face to face with this simple yet awful prob- 
lem : Which will we follow — Christ or these great 
men? Christ or these wise men? Christ or 
these learned men ? Christ or these good men ? 
Christ or men ? This is the whole matter in a 
nutshell. Under which banner — Christ or men? 



154 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

Choose ye this day. If you are Christ's, march 
under his banner, obey his command, submit to 
his judgment, keep his word, and be immersed 
simply because he commands it. But if you be- 
long to these men, obey them — decide, if you 
dare, that obedience to Christ in the solemn act 
of confession of discipleship is a matter of in- 
differency, and please your own fancy. But be 
not astonished when you hear the sorrowful voice 
of your dishonored Lord asking of you that most 
uncomfortable question: 'Why call ye me Lord, 
Lord, and do not the things that I say ? ' 

"I do not know, my brother, what you may 
think of this matter ; but as for me, I prefer to 
follow Christ in this as in everything else, and 
that is the reason I became a Baptist. These 
men testify truly that the original baptism — the 
baptism which our Lord instituted, which he 
himself received in his own sacred person, and 
which he commanded us to receive and to prac- 
tice — is an immersion of the body in water. 
This testimony is extorted from them by the 
force of resistless evidence — against all their de- 
nominational and churchly interests, and against 
their own evident personal tastes and preferences ; 
and it is true, as a rigid, impartial examination 
never fails to demonstrate. 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 155 

' 'And, my brother, every Christian man is shut 
up to this alternative — to obey Christ by being 
immersed, or to disobey him by accepting some- 
thing else on the strange and daring plea that ' it 
will do just as well.' " 

In a short time my reverend friend took his 
departure, a sad and thoughtful man. 

Through a painful mistake he had made a very 
painful discovery — that there are professedly 
Christian men who concede that Christ does re- 
quire immersion, and who still persist in the prac- 
tice of sprinkling. 

I do not wonder that he was surprised and 
grieved, and that he asked with such emphasis: 
"How can a man write as this man does, and 
still continue to practice sprinkling?" And yet 
the state of mind which enables men to do that 
is the sole defense of sprinkling and of infant 
baptism to-day. Let conscience assert itself in 
this matter, and put Christ on the throne — mak-' 
ing his Word the word of a king in reality, a 
word to be heard reverently, and to be obeyed 
implicitly — and immersion instantly assumes its 
proper dignity as a gospel ordinance. 

I said "conscience" advisedly; for it is the 
lack of conscience, in respect to this one matter, 
that keeps the practice of sprinkling afloat. Men 



156 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

do not intend to be disloyal to Christ in this 
thing ; but they have drifted into a dangerous 
state, on the current of indifferency, lulled into 
false security by the force of great ■ names, and 
the soothing murmur of a general assent. They 
fondly fancy the Master does not care, because 
he keeps silent, and utters no word of protest. 
If you chide them, they say, ' ' Oh, it is only a 
form," forgetting that back of the form is the 
solemn command of our Lord enjoining it. 
Only a form, but a divinely-chosen form — a 
form enforced by the authority of Christ him- 
self. When a Christian man is fully awake to 
this fact, he can not be satisfied with some other 
form than the one having divine approval. 

It is idle to talk of it as "a. mere question of 
water;" nay, worse, it is wicked to do so, be- 
cause such pretensions raise a false issue and ob- 
scure the truth. It is a question of the kingly 
authority of Christ. It is a question of the su- 
premacy of his law. There stands the law, plain, 
definite, explicit, positive, in full force. Only 
the same authority that enacted it can repeal it 
or in any way modify it, and that authority is 
silent respecting its repeal. The sacred lips that 
uttered the law of baptism have never, in any 
way, intimated even the slightest. modification 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 157 

of it. How can a man ignore or disobey that 
law, and have a good conscience toward God? 
(i Brethren, if our heart condemn us, God is 
greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." 



I58 BEHIND THE SCENES. 



NUMBER XII. 



' ' What can you plead in behalf of your dear chil- 
dren? You have rejected infant baptism, 
and with it the Covenant of Circumcision made 
with Abraham. What is there left ? What 
can you now plead in behalf of your dear , 
children f 

" Your question is a fair one, I have indeed re- 
jected iiifant baptism, and as for circum- 
cision, I have nothing to do with it. I am 
not afezv, nor have I the least desire to be 
one. And yet I 'have one plea to urge in be- 
half of my dear children. It is a short, 
simple plea, yet one of infinite value. I can 
and I do plead in their behalf the blood of 
Christ, and I would not give tip this plea for 
tens of thousands of Abrahams, and uncounted 
Covenants of Circumcision. I am satisfied 
with it." 

Some time after I had publicly renounced 
infant baptism and sprinkling, I received a letter 
from the wife of my former pastor. A descend- 
ant of the old Puritan stock, she was a lady of 



BEHIND THE SCENES. I 59 

culture and refinement. A Christian of deep, 
fervent piety, she was also a zealous pedobap- 
tist. With her, infant baptism was a very sacred 
and blessed institution, dating back to Abraham. 
In some way, to me unaccountable, she had come 
to associate it inseparably with the covenants of 
circumcision and of grace. It seemed to be 
with her a matter of early training and of 
reverent feeling, almost entirely. I do not 
think she ever examined it as a question of truth. 
I am confident she regarded it as a matter to be 
received and held by faith alone, and that she 
looked upon the intrusion of doubt respecting it 
as a visitation of the evil one, to be instantly, 
firmly and perpetually resisted and rejected, not 
by investigation and argument, but by prayer 
and a new resolution of faith and trust. An 
amusing incident in her quiet, earnest life will 
illustrate the great predominance of feeling over 
judgment in determining her conduct. 

She was visiting a dear friend in a distant city, 
and while there (her friend being a member of 
the "Disciples" Church), much was said to her 
about the importance of submitting to baptism. 
Of course, she had been sprinkled in infancy, 
and she insisted firmly for a time that she was 
all right, while her friend assured her that she 



l60 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

was really unbaptized, and therefore (in his 
opinion) unsaved. At length he said to her: 

' ' You have long striven to follow the Savior, 
and to attain to eternal life. You have done 
many noble, Christly things — but you have not 
been baptized. You say it is not necessary in 
order to be saved. Perhaps you are right, but 
I think you are wrong. Now suppose you go 
on in this way until you come to the judgment, 
and then find that, after all, I am right, and that 
your sins are not forgiven ; in a word, that you 
are lost. Would not a discovery of the fact, at 
that awful hour, be insupportable ? 

"Is it not vastly better to be on the safe side ? 
Remember that, if I am wrong, I am still safe ; 
but if you are wrong, you are lost." 

She made no reply ; but a few days after, 
hearing that there were to be several baptisms 
in the "Disciples" Church in the evening, she 
timidly inquired of her friend whether his pastor 
would baptize her, with the understanding that 
she should continue a member of the Congrega- 
tional Church. Her friend replied in the affirm- 
ative, and then inquired whether she had changed 
her views. 

"No," she replied, " I have not ; but I have 
been thinking about what you said some days 
since about being on the right side. There is 



BEHIND THE SCENES. l6l 

much in that, and I have resolved to run no 
needless risk; and therefore I desire to be duly 
immersed, and then I shall feel that I am certainly 
safe." 

And immersed she was— though whether she 
went on her way any more joyously on that 
account, I can not say. 

Of course my renunciation of pedobaptism 
was a matter of great mystery and great pain to 
her. She was a very warm, earnest, Christian 
friend, and she had reposed great confidence in 
me. When I announced my change of views, it 
was a great shock to her, although she had known 
for weeks that it was coming. 

She could not easily become reconciled to it. 
After a time she wrote me a letter, very kind 
and very pathetic. In it she spoke freely of her 
great sorrow at the step I had taken ; yet with 
the sincerest expressions of friendship and 
Christian affection. 

She seemed to regard me as honest, but greatly 
deluded — as a wrong-doer, but not willfully so. 
In her view, I was rather the victim of mis- 
fortune than the blameworthy rejecter of divine 
truth. Her Christian charity did great honor 
to her heart, while her utter failure to grasp the 
great questions at issue, and to weigh fairly the 
reasons of my action, was not at all creditable to 
ii 



1 62 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

her head. And yet it was not the question of 
any lack of mental power, or of mental discipline, 
but of a vicious training which taught her to 
refer all questions touching religion to the heart 
rather than to the head ; thus giving up to the 
guidance of blind feeling, in matters calling 
urgently for the undimmed gaze of the "eye of 
the mind " — the very mistake which, to-day, 
makes so many good men ■ ' blind leaders of the 
blind." 

Referring to the fact that my children had 
been baptized in infancy, and that they were yet 
very young, she wrote : 

"What can you plead in behalf of your dear 
children? You have rejected infant baptism, 
and with it the Covenant of Circumcision made 
with Abraham. What is there left? What can 
you now plead in behalf of your dear children?" 

It really seemed as if she thought the salvation 
of my children depended on the Covenant of 
Circumcision ; that in some inscrutable way 
their baptism had made them heirs of all its 
benefits, and that among those benefits the chief 
and crowning one is the salvation of the soul. In 
having them baptized, I, as their natural guardian, 
had really done no less than to place God under 
a solemn covenant obligation to save them ; but 
alas! in renouncing infant baptism, I had re- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 63 

leased him from that covenant obligation. Hav- 
ing rejected infant baptism before my children 
were actually saved, I had forfeited all its benefits 
for them, and put them again outside the pale 
of the " covenanted mercies " of God. And if 
infant baptism is not a lie, and a cheat, she was 
right. 

If there is any defense for it in the Word of 
God, that defense is in the plea of circumcision. 
Plainly there is no command, nor precept, nor 
example, in the Scriptures, enjoining or justify- 
ing it. The command to baptize is limited by 
the context to such as believe, as nearly all pedo- 
baptists admit. Every precept, or principle, or 
illustration, in the divine Word, in any way 
touching baptism, relates, evidently, to the bap- 
tism of believers, and to such baptism only. 
And every example of baptism relates to the 
same class, and to them alone. The cases of 
household baptism are no exception to this state- 
ment, and furnish no pretense for the baptism of 
infants, since it is simply impossible to prove the 
existence of even one infant in any of those 
households, and in most of them the context 
makes it certain that all received instruction, be- 
lieved in Christ, and rejoiced in him — things 
which infants are not in the habit of doing. 

Glance at the cases of household baptism in 



164 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

detail. We have no hint, not the slightest, that 
Lydia had either husband or children. The fact 
that she was a merchant, away from her own 
home (Acts xvi. 14, 15), renders it morally 
certain that she was unmarried, and the record 
of her conduct proves that she was a respectable, 
virtuous lady. Taking into consideration the 
known circumstances of her case, it is positively 
cruel to pretend there were infants in her family. 
If we were to assume as much about any respect- 
able lady now living, we would call down upon 
us a speedy and very just prosecution for defa- 
mation of character. Dear old Sister Lydia can 
not defend herself in that way ; but she is fairly 
entitled to better treatment at the hands of 
professed Christians, and I beg our pedobaptist 
friends, in the interest of Christian morals and 
decency, if for no other reason, to let her alone. 
The members of her household are called 
brethren (Acts xvi. 40); but sprinkled babes 
are hardly brethren, those who sprinkle them 
being judges. Besides this, Paul and Silas 
11 comforted " them (Acts xvi. 40). Were those 
noble missionary ministers itinerant baby-tenders? 
Did they talk baby-talk to one or more of those 
" brethren ?" If I seem to talk foolishness, re- 
member that I am replying to an unfounded 
foolish pretense, one that sensible and pious 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 65 

people ought to be ashamed to set up in defense 
of anything. 

The jailer's household were not only baptized, 
all of them (Acts xvi. 33), but they were also 
taught, all of them, before baptism (Acts xvi. 
32), and they all believed in God, all of them 
(Acts xvi. 34). To that sort of infant baptism 
Baptists will be the very last persons to object. 

The household of Crispus were baptized by 
Paul (1 Cor. i. 14), but they were all believers 
(Acts xviii. 8). The household of Stephanas, 
which Paul also baptized (1 Cor. i. 16), were 
certainly believers, since they all became min- 
isters directly afterward, and were so worthy of 
confidence that Paul directs the brethren at 
Corinth to submit themselves unto them — i. e., 
to receive their instructions (1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16). 

The household of Gaius may possibly have 
been baptized by the apostle, but as there is not 
the slightest evidence that they were, nor that 
Gaius had any household of any sort whatever, 
it would seem hardly safe to assume that he had 
a household, and in the household a babe, and 
that Paul baptized that babe, in order to find 
some shadow of excuse for infant baptism. 

This whole matter of household baptisms 
does not afford even an honest pretext for in- 
fant baptism. 



l66 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

1. The presence of an infant is not necessary 
to the existence of a household. In my own 
congregation, at this moment, there are more 
than thirty well-regulated households without so 
much as one infant in any of them. And this 
word household is just as properly applied to 
these families that are destitute of babes, as to 
any others ; and so it was anciently. Therefore, 
the word household of itself proves just nothing 
at all. 

2. In every case of household baptism re- 
corded in the New Testament, there is conclusive 
proof that the entire household were believers. 
These household baptisms, honestly studied, 
justify, not infant baptism, but the baptism of 
believers only. They are Baptist ammunition. 

Nor can infant baptism be justified by the 
incident in the life of our Lord, recorded in 
Matt. xix. 13-15, Mark x. 13-16, and Luke 
xviii. 15-17, commonly described as Jesus bless- 
ing the little children. For Jesus did not bap- 
tize them, nor even hint that they ought to be 
baptized. His silence at such a time is conclusive 
proof that he does not desire their baptism. The 
passage shows beyond a doubt that Jesus is not 
a pedobaptist. It is the one grand incident in 
his life in which he is called to deal directly with 
little children as a class. He notices them, re- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. l6/ 

ceives them, puts his hands on them, takes them 
up in his arms and blesses them, but does not 
utter one word about baptizing them ; therefore, 
he did not intend they should be baptized. 

This touching incident gives no countenance 
to infant baptism. It is also Baptist ammunition 
of the most effective sort, since it shows that 
Baptists, in neglecting the baptism of infants, 
are only following the undeniable example of 
our Lord. 

There remains only one possibility of vindicat- 
ing infant baptism from the Scriptures. If the 
Covenant of Circumcision is still in force, and if 
the form of the rite has been changed by divine 
direction into baptism; then the baptism of in- 
fants, under certain conditions, is an imperative 
duty. Is the Covenant of Circumcision still in 
force ? and has the form of the rite been changed 
by divine direction into baptism ? Suppose we 
look into this matter. 

The Covenant of Circumcision was given to 
Abraham, and is recorded in Genesis, chapter 
XVII. It is in these words : 

"i. And when Abram was ninety years old 
and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and 
said unto him, I am the Almighty God : walk 
before me, and be thou perfect. 

"2. And I will make my covenant between 



1 68 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 

"3. And Abram fell on his face: and God 
talked with him, saying, 

"4. As for me, behold, my covenant is with 
thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 

"5. Neither shall thy name any more be 
called Abram ; but thy name shall be Abraham : 
for a father of many nations have I made thee. 

' '6. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, 
and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall 
come out of thee. 

"7. And I will establish my covenant between 
me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their 
generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a 
God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 

"8. And I will give unto thee, and to thy 
seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a 
stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlast- 
ing possession ; and I will be their God. 

"9. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt 
keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed 
after thee, in their generations. 

"10. This is my covenant, which ye shall 
keep between me and you, and thy seed after 
thee. Every man-child among you shall be cir- 
cumcised. 

"II. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 69 

foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant 
betwixt me and you. 

"12. And he that is eight days old shall be 
circumcised among you, every man-child in your 
generations ; he that is born in the house, or 
bought with money of any stranger, which is not 
of thy seed. 

"13. He that is born in thy house, and he 
that is bought with thy money, must needs be 
circumcised ; and my covenant shall be in your 
flesh for an everlasting covenant. 

"14. And the uncircumcised man-child, whose 
flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul 
shall be cut off from his people ; he hath broken 
my covenant." 

In the last five verses we have Abraham's idea 
of his part of this covenant in his method of 
applying it: 

"23. And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and 
all that were born in his house, and all that were 
bought with his money, every male among the 
men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the 
flesh of their foreskin, in the self-same day, as 
God had said unto him. 

"24. And Abraham was ninety years old and 
nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of 
his foreskin. 

"25. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years 



I/O BEHIND THE SCENES. 

old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his 
foreskin. 

"26. In the selfsame day was Abraham cir- 
cumcised, and Ishmael his son ; 

"27. And all the men of his house, born in 
the house, and bought with money of the stranger, 
were circumcised with him." 

Is this Covenant of Circumcision still in force ? 
This is not a new question. It arose at Antioch 
in the days of the apostles, and troubled the 
brethren there greatly. For certain men went 
there from J udea, and taught the people: "Except 
ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye 
can not be saved." Paul and Barnabas contra- 
dicted them, but they insisted upon it, and the 
church was in a great commotion about it. At 
last, to set the matter at rest, they sent a com- 
mittee, headed by Paul and Barnabas, to Jeru- 
salem, to consult the apostles and elders about 
it. After a very earnest consultation, the apostles 
and elders decided unanimously that circumcision 
was not necessary, and they sent chosen men, 
Judas and Silas, with Paul and Barnabas, to tell 
the brethren at Antioch, in substance, that they 
need not be circumcised. Read the fifteenth 
chapter of Acts, and you will see that this first 
great Council of the Church, under the direction 
and by the advice of the inspired apostles, set 



BEHIND THE SCENES. I/I 

aside circumcision as a matter not binding on 
the Church of Christ. 

It is true, they expressed themselves very 
cautiously, for they were in great danger of ex- 
citing a deadly persecution against themselves, 
surrounded as they were by zealous Jews ; but 
their letter to the church at Antioch is sufficiently 
explicit. 

The refusal to enforce circumcision upon the 
church at Antioch was a deliberate, intentional 
notice to them, and to Christians everywhere, 
that it is not an institution of Christianity. I 
affirm, therefore, by the authority of the apostles 
of our Lord, that the Covenant of Circumcision 
is not in force among Christians. 

Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, denounces 
circumcision as opposed to the gospel. (Gal. 
v. 2.) "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if 
ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you 
nothing." And in the eleventh verse of the 
same chapter he says: "And I, brethren, if I 
yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer per- 
secution? then is the offense of the cross ceased." 

If circumcision is still in force, why did not 
Paul preach it ? If it is a part of Christianity, 
why did he say, "If ye be circumcised, Christ 
shall profit you nothing?" If circumcision is 



172 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

still in force, then Paul did not know it, or he is 
a deceiver. 

But it is said the form of circumcision is 
changed to baptism. But if this be true, why 
did not the Council at Jerusalem tell the brethren 
at Antioch that they were already circumcised 
by baptism ? If it be true, why did not Paul tell 
the brethren of Galatia that they were already 
circumcised by baptism ? If it be true, why were 
any baptized who had been circumcised ? 

If it be true, then all who are baptized are 
thereby circumcised, and Christ profits them 
nothing, since Paul says (Gal. v. 2), "If ye be 
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." 
If it be true, then all baptized persons, being 
thereby circumcised, are bound to do the whole 
law, Paul being judge, for he says (Gal. v. 3), 
' ' For I testify again to every man that is circum- 
cised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." 
If it be true then, every baptized person, being 
thereby circumcised, is fallen into endless troubles 
and contradictions. 

For, being circumcised, he has become a Jew, 
and as such he is an heir with them of the 
earthly Canaan, and he is subject, with them, to 
all the laws and ordinances of the Theocracy. 
Having become a circumcised man by baptism, 
in the very act by which he intended, solemnly 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 173 

and publicly, to "put on Christ," and avow 
himself a Christian, he has unwittingly "put on 
Moses" — and henceforth Christ avails him noth- 
ing; while, in addition to his own crushing burden 
of personal guilt, as a wretched sinner, he comes 
in for his share of the curse resting upon the 
Jews for their rejection of our Lord. At the 
same time, being by his circumcision "a debtor 
to do the whole law " (Gal. v. 3), he has no other 
way of justification open to him than by the law, 
and he is, therefore, fallen from grace. (Gal. v. 
4). But by the law salvation is impossible, for 
" By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be 
justified in his sight : for by the law is the knowl- 
edge of sin." (Rom. iii. 20). 

Absurd ? Yes — but the legitimate and in- 
evitable result of this absurd notion that circum- 
cision is still in force in the form of baptism. 

No, circumcision is not in force. Christ 
abolished it: "Blotting out the handwriting of 
ordinances that was against us, which was con- 
trary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing 
it to his cross." (Col. ii. 14.) And the Council 
at Jerusalem quietly dropped it as a thing no 
longer binding — an action the more significant 
from the fact that it was advocated by such 
inspired Jews as Paul and Peter and James, and 



174 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

was approved by all the apostles and elders, the 
most of whom were certainly Jews. 

And Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, 
did not preach it, but constantly warned the 
Christian brethren to let it alone — telling them, 
in effect, that they could not have both Christ 
and circumcision ; that if they were circumcised 
they would thereby forfeit Christ, and henceforth 
he would profit them nothing. And yet, in the 
vain hope of justifying infant baptism, men claim- 
ing to be Christians tell us that, after all, cir- 
cumcision is not nailed to the cross ; is not 
opposed to Christ ; is not abolished, but is still 
in full force, in the form of baptism. When 
asked to name the chapter and verse wherein 
this change of form is authorized, they are silent. 
When called upon to vindicate the conduct of 
the apostles and elders in the Council of Jeru- 
salem, they are dumb. When requested to 
explain how it is that Paul — who, according to 
their statements, was all the time preaching, and, 
at least sometimes, practicing circumcision — 
could honestly denounce circumcision, and affirm 
defiantly that he did not preach it, they are 
speechless. 

When we inquire how it happened that the 
existence of circumcision, under the form of 
baptism, escaped the notice of the entire Christian 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 175 

world until so recently, they ought to blush with 
modest worth, but they suddenly become wonder- 
fully deaf, and of course attempt no reply. 

The truth is, this whole pretended argument 
for infant baptism from circumcision is an after- 
thought — a contrivance cooked up to meet a 
desperate emergency. Its weakness is exceeded 
only by its audacity, unscripturalness and endless 
inconsistencies. Its existence is a reflection on 
the piety of modern times, while the fact that 
any considerable number of men continue to 
employ it as a defense of the practice of infant 
baptism is a severe impeachment of the intelli- 
gence of Christendom in this progressive age. 

Circumcision was a strictly Jewish rite. It 
began with Abraham and ended with Moses. 
It did not begin with the Dispensation of Prom- 
ise. It was injected into that dispensation at a 
certain time, as a surety and means of the ful- 
fillment of those temporal promises which were 
to prepare the way for Christ. 

There was no Christ in circumcision, but it 
was designed and fitted to become the bond of 
a new national life, through which in due time 
he might appear. Abraham saw in it the begin- 
ning of the fulfillment of the long-deferred prom- 
ises of future temporal greatness. It was to him 
an explicit, visible pledge of a numerous and 



I76 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

powerful posterity, and for this reason it was to 
him a seal, or confirmation, of the faith and con- 
fidence in the promises of God which he had 
cherished so long and so patiently. This was 
its only connection with faith. Abraham saw in 
it an earnest of the realization of his long-de- 
ferred hope and trust. It was, therefore, to him 
a seal of his faith ; but he received it, not be- 
cause he was a saint, but because he was to be- 
come the Father of many nations, and especial- 
ly of that particular nation through whom the 
Messiah should come. And his sons and his 
slaves and the sons of his slaves received it, not 
because they had faith, or were by and by to 
have it, but solely because they were his sons, 
or his slaves, or the sons of his sons, or the sons 
of his slaves, and, therefore, citizens of that new 
nation of which God had constituted him the 
founder and the head. They were entitled to 
it, not by faith, present or prospective, but by 
natural birth in the nation, in which it was the 
badge of citizenship. As a Jewish rite, it had 
its uses as a pledge or token of certain great 
temporal rights and privileges ; but when Juda- 
ism gave place to Christianity, it was abolished 
along with the nationality of which it was the 
bond and the badge, and the Covenant of Works, 



BEHIND THE SCENES. I^J 

of which it had also become the recognized 
bond. 

Some, indeed, imagine that it still survives 
under the form of baptism. But if so, it has 
undergone a most complete and wonderful trans- 
formation — such a transformation as utterly de- 
stroys its identity, and converts it into a some- 
thing in every way unlike its own former self, 
and in everything fatally opposed to it. 

As to outward form, what can be more unlike 
than circumcision and baptism — the one a bloody 
cutting, the other a bloodless bathing ? 

As a religious type or symbol, while it is not 
opposed in signification to baptism, it is almost 
immeasurably inferior to it. 

It symbolizes a putting off the sins of the flesh 
— a circumcision of the heart — but it does not 
even hint of the means of that circumcision, nor 
does it intimate the completeness of it. It in- 
dicates a lopping off of old evils — a partial re- 
form in life — but it gives no promise of a new 
life, a divine life, charged to overflowing with 
good. 

But not so baptism. That tells in its very 
form, not only of a cleansing, but of a change 
radical as death, and vitalizing as the resurrec- 
tion. It symbolizes, not a mere lopping off of 
rotten limbs, but a dying to the old life of sin 

12 



178 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

and a rising into a new life of holiness ; and all 
this through the death and resurrection of our 
Lord. The one voices the demand of the law, 
the other describes, in eloquent action, the amaz- 
ing victory of the Cross. The one is a "yoke 
of bondage," making those who receive it debt- 
ors to do the whole law ; the other is a badge 
of liberty and life, assuring all observers that all 
who rightly receive it have passed from the bond- 
age and death of law into the freedom and light 
and life of the gospel. 

The one is the badge of citizenship in a tem- 
poral kingdom, and attests only a natural birth 
into a certain temporal nationality ; the other is 
the badge of citizenship in a spiritual kingdom, 
and attests a spiritual birth into the kingdom of 
God. 

The one belongs to the Covenant of Law, 
which says, "This do and live;" the other be- 
longs to the Covenant of Grace, which says, 
"Believe and live." 

The one is the natural birthright of all the 
male children of a certain nation, and of all their 
male servants and proselytes, no matter what 
their moral character; the other is the spiritual 
birthright of such, and only such, as are born 
of God, male or female. 

The one is the token and badge of the Juda- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 79 

ism whose letter killeth ; the other is the token 
and badge of that Christianity whose spirit giv- 
eth life. 

In a word, circumcision and baptism are as 
unlike in all respects as law and grace, as Moses 
and Christ, as Sinai and the Cross, as bondage 
and liberty, as death and life. They are not, 
they can not be, one and the same. 

Baptism is not circumcision in disguise, but 
the new, divine, gospel rite, ordained by infinite 
wisdom as a perpetual and complete epitome of 
the central, vitalizing truths of the gospel of 
Christ; and, as such, it has nothing in common 
with Judaism, or its antiquated and bloody cere- 
monial rites. It comes to us, fresh from the heart 
and the lips of Christ, eloquent with his spirit 
and with his truth. 

But Paul says (Col. ii. n): "In whom also 
ye are circumcised with the circumcision, made 
without hands, in putting off the body of the 
sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." 

"Does he not mean that we were, in some 
way, thus circumcised in the person of the infant 
Christ?" Nay. The circumcision here spok- 
en of is evidently that work of grace which he 
wrought in their hearts by his spirit — a work of 
which circumcision proper was only an imper- 
fect symbol, and not that work wrought in his 



l80 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

flesh when he was circumcised on the eighth 
day. That fleshly circumcision was made with 
hands, but this without hands. That put off a bit 
of the flesh of a sinless man, but this "puts off 
the body of the sins of the flesh" for sinful men. 
That was a carnal ordinance, this is a spiritual 
renewal. That was an act of obedience to the 
letter of the law, this is an effect of the opera- 
tion of divine grace. That was a characteristic 
of the dispensation of types and shadows, this 
is the 'crowning glory of the dispensation of spir- 
itual realities. That simply certified that Jesus 
was a Jew, and, as such, entitled to all the rights 
and immunities of a Jew; this made those Coios- 
sians genuine Christians, heirs and trophies of 
the regenerating grace of God. 

But we are told that circumcision still survives 
in baptism, the latter being the badge of mem- 
bership in the church now, as circumcision was 
anciently. This information would be very im- 
portant, indeed, if it were true. It assumes the 
identity of the Christian Church and the Jewish 
Commonwealth — an assumption not only not 
true, but utterly and hopelessly false, in every 
particular. 

The ancient Jewish Commonwealth was simply 
a religious nationality — a nation under theocratic 
government. The Christian Church is a spiritual 



BEHIND THE SCENES. l8l 

body, having properly no political or national 
character or functions. 

Take the Apostolic Church at Jerusalem and 
contrast it with the Jewish Commonwealth: 

The one was composed of natural men, the 
other of regenerate men. In the one piety was 
not necessary in order to membership, in the 
other it was the chief qualification. 

To the one were added daily by natural birth 
all male children of Jewish parents, to the other 
were added daily by spiritual birth such only as 
were saved. The one was made up chiefly of 
worldly, impenitent persons, with whom religion 
was an affair of forms and ceremonies and state- 
craft ; the other was composed chiefly, if not en- 
tirely, of persons with whom religion was a mat- 
ter of heart and life — persons who gave evidence 
of genuine penitence and living faith, and who 
willingly gave up all for Christ. 

The members of the one boasted the law of 
God written on tables of stone, but ignored it 
in their lives. The members of the other had 
that law written on their hearts, and illustrated 
it in their lives. 

The one institution was built on the Covenant 
of Works: "This do, and thou shalt live;" the 
other was erected on a better covenant, the Cove- 
nant of Grace: "Believe on the Lord Jesus 



1 82 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

Christ, and thou shalt be saved." The one had 
the Levitical priesthood, with Aaron at its head ; 
the other had but one priest, Jesus the Son of 
God. 

The contrast could not well be more complete. 
The Christian Church is a new institution, dis- 
tinct from the old Jewish economy, and totally 
different from it in all things ; having a new and 
better covenant, a new and better sacrifice, a new 
and better high priest, new and better promises, 
a spiritual membership, admitted on new and 
better conditions, and by new and better tests 
of fitness. 

If a man could demonstrate that black is white, 
that darkness is light, that evil is good, that sick- 
ness is health, that death is life ; then, perchance, 
he might be able to prove that the old Jewish 
Commonwealth and the Church of Christ are one 
and the same. 

They are not the same in any just sense what- 
ever. They have not the oneness of identity, 
nor of continuity, nor yet of similarity. They 
have only the same God, and a part of his ora- 
cles of divine truth in common. And being so 
entirely unlike in all else, they are also wholly 
unlike in their badges of membership. 

But suppose, for a moment, that the ancient 
Jewish Commonwealth and the Church of Christ 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 83 

are really one, and that circumcision does sur- 
vive in the form of baptism, and that children 
ought to be admitted into this Jewish Christian 
Church now by baptism, as they were anciently 
admitted into the Jewish Commonwealth by cir- 
cumcision. Admit all this and what follows? 
Why, nothing less than this: The Church must 
have a High Priest in its earthly sanctuary, as 
anciently. It must have its priests and Levites. 
It must have its heads of tribes, its Sanhedrim, 
and its voice of authority which none may dis- 
pute. And when it has all these things, what is 
it but the Church of Rome? And if this plea 
for infant baptism from circumcision is valid at 
all, it proves that the Church of Rome is the 
true apostolic, Jewish Church of Christ, and that 
all other churches are schismatic, heretical sects. 
And this puts Luther and Calvin, Knox, Cran- 
mer and Wesley into a most unpleasant plight. 
For it exhibits them as most unsaintly schism- 
atics, opposing the Pope and the true Church. 

When our Protestant brethren have succeeded 
in proving the identity of the Jewish Common- 
wealth and the Church of Christ, their first duty 
will be to cease their protest against Rome, and 
to seek immediate reconciliation with her as the 
only true Church. 

But I submit that an argument which involves 



I84 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

the inevitable overthrow of Protestantism is pre- 
sumptively false, and ought not to be received 
by sincere Protestants, except as the result of 
the most careful scrutiny, and in obedience to 
the most rigid and undeniable proofs of its ab- 
solute truthfulness. If this circumcision-baptism 
theory could be proven, it would not only sus- 
tain infant baptism, but the Pope, the College 
of Cardinals and the entire machinery of Roman- 
ism. If true, it is the death-khell of Protestant- 
ism. 

Protestant ministers engaged in the vain at- 
tempt to substantiate it could not possibly do 
anything more absurd and hopeless, nor can the 
wisest friend of Romanism devise a scheme more 
perfectly adapted to destroy the last vestiges of 
Protestantism and to give Rome universal and 
perpetual dominion. The only safety of the 
Protestant, and the only despair of the Roman- 
ist, is in the utter absence of proof of this theory ; 
nay, the presence of undeniable, overwhelming 
evidence that this entire claim of identity is false. 

But, again, suppose we concede for a moment 
all that the most ardent devotee of infant bap- 
tism will claim, that the Covenant of Circumcis- 
ion is now in force in the Church of Christ ; that 
this covenant includes the Covenant of Grace 
("In thee shall all the families of the earth be 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 85 

blessed." — Gen. xii. 3), and that the form of 
circumcision has been changed into baptism. 
Then these are some of the consequences that 
inevitably follow : 

I. Male servants and slaves must be baptized, 
for such were circumcised. 

II. Females must not be baptized, since they 
were not circumcised. 

III. All the male children of members of the 
Church must be baptized on the eighth day, for 
that is the day named in the covenant. 

IV. All males who are thus baptized are to be 
reckoned as the natural descendants of Abraham, 
entitled to all the privileges and bound by all the 
obligations of Judaism. 

V. There are now no Jews in the world, ex- 
cept such as are baptized, since circumcision is 
performed now by baptism. 

VI. The Church of Christ, and that alone, is 
the true owner of the earthly Canaan. 

VII. All who are not baptized are forever 
lost, for the male child which was not circum- 
cised was to be cut off from his people. He 
had no right to the benefits of that covenant, 
and if that was the Covenant of Grace, he was 
forever lost. If, therefore, baptism is the new 
form of circumcision, then no unbaptized person 
can have the benefits of the Covenant of Cir- 



1 86 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

cumcision; and if that covenant be really the 
Covenant of Grace, then it follows beyond a 
peradventure that no unbaptized person can be 
saved. 

Thus this boasted circumcision argument car- 
ries with it such consequences as demonstrate 
to every sane mind its utter falsity. 

Do you wonder that I replied to the appeal 
of my old pastor's wife in terms indicating little 
respect for the Abrahamic Covenant of Circum- 
cision as a warrant for infant baptism? That 
covenant was a good thing in its day. It served 
its purpose admirably, and then it gave place to 
a better and bloodless covenant — resting on the 
one offering of Christ, and assuring spiritual and 
eternal blessings. 

God's Covenant of Grace made with Abraham 
twenty-four years before the Covenant of Cir- 
cumcision, I did not and do not reject. That 
was confirmed in Christ by the very same act 
by which the Covenant of Circumcision was 
taken away and nailed to his cross. That Cove- 
nant of Grace is open to all. Baptism can not 
secure its benefits, nor can the lack of baptism 
forfeit them. If it were otherwise, then bap- 
tism would have power to save, and the absence 
of baptism would render salvation impossible. 

But some tell us that Christians are children 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 87 

of Abraham — that they are called the seed of 
Abraham. Yes, but in what sense? Not in the 
sense of natural generation, surely! No one 
believes a thing so ridiculously absurd as that! 
What then? Why, in a spiritual sense only. 
Abraham believed God — and his faith became 
an eminent example and illustration of all true 
faith. So he is called, by way of eminence, the 
father of the faithful. If then you believe God, 
you are a child of Abraham — in the sense that 
you do as he did. You follow his example. You 
become, by your faith, a member of the great 
company of believers, of which, because of the 
priority and eminence of his faith, Abraham has 
been called the father, and in that sense, and in 
that alone, are you his seed. 

Does it follow that your child, born of your 
flesh, is of the seed of Abraham? By no means. 
Your child can become a child of Abraham only 
in the same sense, and in the same way, that you 
did — by believing God for himself. This is as 
plain as that two and two make four ; and yet pious 
pedobaptist ministers are often conveniently blind 
to it. But a man who refuses to see it, ought not 
to wonder if men doubt his intelligence or the 
purity of his motives ; they can not help it, and 
generally, as the more charitable way, they will 



1 88 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

give him credit for honesty at the expense of 
his judgment and good sense. 

Being yourself a child of Abraham by faith, 
it is your privilege and your duty to endeavor 
by a holy life, by faithful instruction, and by 
earnest prayer, to induce your children to exer- 
cise a like faith, and to become thereby heirs with 
you of the heavenly inheritance. It is your priv- 
ilege and your duty to do all you can to bring 
your dear ones to God, but you can do it only 
by way of the cross. The way to heaven is not 
by infant baptism, but by way of Christ cruci- 
fied. Go with your dear ones to Gethsemane, 
and Calvary, and Olivet. Show them the dear 
Master agonizing and dying for their sins, and 
ascending to the Father; and if that does not 
bring them to penitence, and faith, and hope, 
you may rest assured that the baptismal font is 
of no use. If they will not heed the dying, 
risen Savior, you may depend upon it, they will 
not care for Abraham, nor for any or all of his 
covenants. 

And when you carry their case to the throne 
of mercy, your weary, aching heart will need 
no other plea than the blood of Jesus. Indeed, 
that is the only plea that can find admission 
there. The devout Catholic may plead the name 
of the Virgin Mary there, but it can not be 



BEHIND THE SCENES. I89 

heard. The devout pedobaptist may plead the 
name of Abraham, but all in vain. Only one 
name can avail there — the name of Jesus. "If 
ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it." 
That is a full warrant for claiming all you need, 
and it is from the lips of our Lord himself. All 
power in heaven and on earth is in his hands, 
and he is able to redeem every promise with 
absolute certainty. Bring your dear ones, then, 
in the arms of faith, not to the baptismal font, 
on doubtful authority at the best — on a supposed 
authority that has never yet been clearly vindi- 
cated, and that apparently never can be — but 
directly to Christ, and plead his own precious 
promise. In this you will be doing right beyond 
any doubt — for Christ himself invites you to do 
so in these blessed words: "Ask and receive, 
that your joy may be full," and "Ask, and it 
shall be given unto you." 

Many years have passed since I received the 
letter from my dear old pastor's wife, asking me 
so pathetically, "What can you plead in behalf 
of your dear children? You have rejected in- 
fant baptism, and with it the Covenant of Cir- 
cumcision made with Abraham. What is there 
left ? What can you now plead in behalf of your 
dear children?" and I am only the more firmly 
convinced each passing year, that Christ is still 



I9O BEHIND THE SCENES. 

left me, and that his name and his blood are an 
all-sufficient plea, and I still adhere to my reply: 
"Your question is a fair one. I have indeed 
rejected infant baptism, and as for circumcision, 
I have nothing to do with it. I am not a Jew, 
nor have I the least desire to be one. And yet 
I have one plea to urge in behalf of my dear 
children. It is a short and simple plea, yet one 
of infinite value. I can and I do plead in their 
behalf the blood of Jesus, and I would not give 
up this plea for tens of thousands of Abrahams, 
and uncounted Covenants of Circumcision. I 
am satisfied with it." 



BEHIND THE SCENES. I9I 



NUMBER XIII. 



1 '/ like the Baptists very much. They are a good 
people. But there is one thing about them that 
I never could understand, and that is their 
close communion. I can not see why they 
should be so narrow." 

While pastor of the Baptist Church in the 
city of P , I formed the acquaintance of Sis- 
ter M , a most excellent Christian lady, a 

member of the Presbyterian Church. She was 
an elderly lady — a mother in Israel — always in- 
terested in every good work, and very fond of 
Christian conversation. She was too infirm to 
go abroad much, and at her request, I often call- 
ed at her house to talk over the interests of the 
Master's work, especially in our city. 

One day she surprised me by alluding to our 
denominational differences, a matter which had 
never before been mentioned in our interviews. 
After speaking of the zeal of certain members 
of my church in the cause of temperance, she 
continued : 

"I like the Baptists very much. They are a 



I92 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

good people. But there is one thing about them 
I never could understand, and that is their close 
communion. I can not see why they should be 
so narrow." 

Thus challenged, I thought it my duty to aid 
her in the solution of this very strange problem, 
so troublesome to so many of the dear disciples 
of the Master. So I said : 

"Do you really desire to understand our close 
communion?" 

"Certainly I do." 

* ' Well, I think I can make it plain to you in 
a.few moments." 

"If you can, I wish you would. It would 
be a great relief to me to know that they have 
a good reason for it." 

"Very well, I will try. You are a Presby- 
terian, I believe, are you not?" 

"Yes, sir; I have been a member of the Pres- 
byterian Church from childhood." 

"Do you fully indorse the doctrines and us- 
ages of the Presbyterian Church?" 

"Certainly, sir; I am a thorough Presbyterian, 
in all respects." 

"Then you believe in the Presbyterian views 
and usages respecting the Lord's Supper?" 

"Of course; I think they are scriptural and 
right" 



BEHIND THE SCENES. I93 

"Well, let us see if we understand those views 
and usages alike. Presbyterians believe and 
teach that the Lord's Sapper is a Church ordi- 
nance, and that only those who are members of 
the Church in good standing are entitled to par- 
take of it. They also believe and teach that bap- 
tized persons only are members in good stand- 
ing in any gospel Church. In other words, Pres- 
byterians hold that only such persons have a 
right to that table as are members, baptized 
members, of evangelical churches, and they in- 
vite such and such only. Am I correct in this 
statement of their views and practice? " 

"Yes, sir; you have stated our views and 
practice precisely." 

"And you believe them fully?" 

"I do ; I have no doubt that they are script- 
ural and true. " 

"Then, if I am not mistaken, you believe 
firmly that scriptural baptism and church-mem- 
bership are prerequisites to the Lord's table; 
that faith is not enough to entitle any one to 
appear there ; and in this view you agree with 
the membership of the Presbyterian Church?" 

"You are not mistaken. That is just what 

we believe and practice. We all think that a 

person who is not baptized, and who is not also 

a member in good standing in some evangelical 

13 



194 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

church, ought not to go to the Lord's table. 
He ought first to be baptized and unite with 
some church, and then take^the Supper." 

"Exactly. And you think that those who 
are sprinkled are baptized, and therefore you 
invite them." 

"To be sure we do. We accept sprinkling 
as valid baptism, and we regard infant sprinkling, 
too, as real baptism ; but we do not reject im- 
mersion as baptism. We regard you Baptists as 
baptized believers, and would welcome you to 
the Lord's table among us. Why do you not 
welcome us to the Lord's table in your churches ?" 

"Ah ! that's the point precisely. But I think 
you can answer that question yourself. Suppose 
now, my sister, that you wake up some bright 
morning holding precisely the same views re- 
specting admission to the Lord's table that you 
now hold, but firmly convinced that immersion 
upon a public profession of faith in the Lord 
Jesus is the only scriptural baptism, and that 
sprinkling is not baptism at all, what w T ould you 
be then ? What could you be but a close com- 
munion Baptist?" 

"Oh, I see it at last; I see it. Of course, I 
should be a Baptist, and that without changing 
my views about communion one bit. It is close 
baptism that makes it seem such close commun- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 1 95 

ion. How much I have wronged you Baptists 
by my hard thoughts and cruel words about your 
narrowness and bigotry ; while it is all the while 
a noble, firm fidelity to principle. I hope you 
will forgive me, for I did it ignorantly, and rest 
assured I shall never again complain of close 
communion." 

That good sister did not become a Baptist — 
being satisfied with her sprinkling — but she gave 
Baptists due credit for their integrity, in abiding 
the just consequences of their own convictions 
of Bible truth and Christian duty. 

Happening in the city of X one day on 

business, and hearing a church bell, I dropped 
in, hoping to hear a sermon. I was not disap- 
pointed. The church was United Presbyterian, 
and the preacher (a wide-awake Scotchman) de- 
livered an inspiring sermon. In it he discoursed 
of Christian charity. Alluding to the Baptists, 
and the abuse heaped upon them as close com- 
munionists, he said : 

"The Baptists are no more chargeable with 
close communion than are the Presbyterians. 
They hold, in common with us, and, indeed, in 
common with the great body of evangelical Chris- 
tians, that baptism is a scriptural prerequisite to 
the Lord's table. They are firmly convinced that 
immersion only is baptism; and therefore, as 



I96 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

honest Christians, they can not invite to that 
table any who have not been immersed. All 
honor to the Baptists for their firm maintenance 
of principle in the face of bitter opposition. Let 
no man twit them of close communion. It is 
not a question about communion, but about bap- 
tism. We have no controversy with them about 
communion. It is a controversy about baptism, 
and about baptism only. We think they are 
wrong about baptism. Let us reason with them 
about that, and try to convince them that they 
are mistaken ; but let us be honest and confess 
that if they are right about baptism, they are 
right about all the rest." 

As I was an entire stranger to the congrega- 
tion, and to the preacher, I knew that he had not 
said these things to flatter me, but because he 
was a well-informed, honest man, and loved to 
speak the truth. 

In the beginning of my ministry, before I was 
ordained, I invited a Presbyterian minister to oc- 
cupy my pulpit on communion Sabbath and ad- 
minister the Lord's Supper, and he accepted my 
invitation. 

There was at that time in my congregation a 
young man, a very recent convert, and a very 
zealous Christian worker. He was an English- 
man, and had been sprinkled in infancy in the 



BEHIND THE SCENES. igj 

Church of England. Afterward he had become 
an avowed atheist, and was such when I first 
met him. At his earnest request, I privately 
canvassed the whole ground of speculative athe- 
ism with him. I found him a sharp, trained 
reasoner, of a very decided metaphysical cast 
of mind, and our discussions were continued for 
several months. At length he was thoroughly 
convinced of his mistake, made a public renun- 
ciation of his atheism, sought Christ, and became 
a very devout, earnest Christian. His talents 
made him very useful, and he was almost immedi- 
ately made superintendent of the Sunday-school, 
in which position he was doing good service at 

the time Rev. Mr. S came at my invitation 

to administer the Lord's Supper in my church. 
He had not united with any church, being in 
doubt about which one he ought to unite with. 
Ultimately he became a Congregationalist, and 
is now, and has been for many years, an honor- 
ed and useful minister of the gospel in that de- 
nomination. 

I loved him tenderly as a Christian brother, 
and a very dear friend, and, in common with 
many of my brethren, I greatly desired to have 
him sit down with us at the Lord's table. At 
that time I had not examined the question of 
communion, but was governed in the matter by 



I98 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

misguided feelings, and consequently was in fa- 
vor of open communion. So I spoke to Rev. 

Mr. S , confidentially, and requested him to 

speak to Bro. H privately, and invite him 

to come to the table with us. I told of his re- 
cent conversion, his zeal for Christ, and our great 
love for him as a true and devoted disciple. 

Mr. S listened attentively until I conclud- 
ed, then he said : 

"Is Bro. H a member of any church?" 

"No ; he has not yet decided where he ought 
to unite. He has that matter now under pray- 
erful consideration." 

"Well, I can not invite him to the Lord's 
table. That is an ordinance of the Church, and 
only those who are church-members have a right 
to come to it." 

"Oh, but he is such a good man ! We all 
love him so much! Do, please, invite him." 

"No ; I can not. As for loving him, you can 
love him just as w r ell, and fellowship him just as 
much if he does not come to the table. The 
Lord's table is not to exhibit our love and fellow- 
ship for each other, but to commemorate the 
death of our Lord. It will be time enough for 

Bro. H to engage in the observance of this 

church service when he has become a member 
of the church." 



BEHIND THE SCENES. I99 

"But Bro. H has been baptized; he was 

baptized in infancy in the Church of England. 
Isn't that enough ? " 

"No, sir. The Supper is a church ordinance, 
and it belongs, not to all who are baptized, but 
only to those who are baptized members of the 

church. Bro. H has been baptized, but he 

is not a member of any church. He was bap- 
tized by a minister of the Church of England. 
Very well. We respect his baptism. But he 
was not received into the membership of the 
Church of England. And he does not consider 
himself a member of that church, or of any other, 
and therefore he has no right at the Lord's table, 
and we have no right to invite him there until he 
unites with some evangelical church." 

And Mr. S was firm, and I was obliged 

to submit to what I then deemed a very great 
hardship, and a grievous wrong. But I have 
long since learned that he was right in putting 
the order of the Lord's house above the clamor 
of private affection, or personal interest and feel- 
ing. 

In refusing to invite Bro. H to the Lord's 

table he acted upon strict Presbyterian princi- 
ples, and upon strict Baptist principles as well. 
And in support of his action, he might have ar- 
rayed the standard writers and authorities of al- 



200 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

most every denomination in Christendom. Take 
a few samples. Dr. Doddridge, Congregation- 
alism says: "It is certain that, as far as our 
knowledge of antiquity reaches, no unbaptized 
person received the Lord's Supper." {Lectures, 
page 511.) 

" How excellent soever any man's character 
is, he must be baptized before he can be looked 
upon as completely a member of the Church of 
Christ. ' ' {Lectures, page 511.) 

Richard Baxter, Congregationalist, says: 
' ' What man dare go in a way that hath nei- 
ther precept nor example to warrant it, from a 
way that hath a full current of both ; yet they 
that will admit members into the visible church 
without baptism do so. " {Plain Scriptural Proof, 
page 24. ) 

Rev. Dr. Dwight, Congregationalist, says: il It 
is an indispensable qualification for this ordinance 
that the candidate for communion be a member 
of the visible Church of Christ, in full standing. 
By this I intend that he should be a man of 
piety ; that he should have made a public pro- 
fession of religion, and that he should have 
been baptized." {Systematic Theology ', Ser. 160.) 
Again he says (Ser. 156): "Except a man be 
born of water, and of the Spirit, etc. To be 
born of water is to be baptized. To be born 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 201 

of the Spirit is to be regenerated. The king- 
dom of God is a phrase used in the gospel in a 
twofold sense, and denotes his visible and invis- 
ible kingdom, or the collection of apparent and 
the collection of real saints. The indispensable 
condition of entering the former, or visible king- 
dom, is here made by our Savior, baptism. The 
indispensable qualification for admission into the 
invisible kingdom is regeneration, the great act 
of the Spirit of God, which constitutes men real 
saints. Baptism, therefore, is here made, by Christ, 
a condition absolute to our authorized entrance into 
his visible Church. ' ' 

Rev. Dr. Hopkins, Congregationalist, says : 
"No one is to be considered and treated as a 
member of the Church of Christ unless he be 
baptized with water, as this is the only door by 
which persons can be introduced into the visible 
kingdom of Christ, according to his appoint- 
ment." {Curtis s on Com., page 125.) 

Rev. F. G. Hibbard, Methodist Episcopal, 
says {Christian Baptism, page 174, Second Part) : 
"Before entering upon the argument before us, 
it is but just to remark that, in one principle, 
the Baptist and pedobaptist churches agree. 
They both agree in rejecting from the commun- 
ion at the table of the Lord, and in denying the 
rights of church-fellowship to all who have not 



202 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

been baptized. Valid baptism, they consider, is 
essential to constitute visible church-member- 
ship. This also we hold. The only question, 
then, that here divides us is, What is essential 
to valid baptism? The Baptists, in passing the 
sweeping sentence of disfranchisement upon all 
other Christian churches, have only acted upon 
a principle held in common with all other Chris- 
tian churches, viz.: that baptism is essential to 
church- membership. They have denied our bap- 
tism, and, as unbaptized persons, we have been 
excluded from their table. That they err greatly 
in their views of Christian baptism we, of course, 
believe. But, according to their views of bap- 
tism, they certainly are consistent in restricting 
thus their communion. We would not be un- 
derstood as passing a judgment of approval upon 
their course, but we say their views of baptism 
force them upon the ground of strict commun- 
ion, and herein they act upon the same princi- 
ples as other churches, i. e., they admit only 
those whom they deem baptized persons to the 
communion table. Of course, they must be their 
own judges of what baptism is. It is evident 
that, according to our views of baptism, we can 
admit them to our communion; but with their 
views of baptism, it is equally evident that they 
can never reciprocate the courtesy. And the 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 203 

charge of close communion is no more applicable 
to the Baptists than to us, inasmuch as the ques- 
tion of church-fellowship with them is determined 
by as liberal principles as it is with any other 
Protestant churches, so far, I mean, as the pres- 
ent subject is concerned; i. e., it is determined by 
valid baptism." 

Dr. Wall, Episcopal, says {Hist. Infant Bap- 
tism, Part II. , Chap. 9) : ' ' No church ever gave 
the communion to any persons before they were 
baptized. Among all the absurdities that ever 
w T ere held, none ever maintained that any person 
should partake of the communion before he was 
baptized." 

Open communion is a modern innovation, 
having no sanction in Scripture, in the history 
of the churches, or in reason. 

That it has made some inroads upon the or- 
der and stability of some churches is readily 
conceded, and that it is a growing sentiment in 
many quarters is doubtless true; and yet the 
great body of Christian churches still reject it, 
and hold, with the much maligned Baptists, that 
baptism and church-membership are essential to 
an orderly participation in the solemn service of 
the Lord's Supper. 

Even our Episcopal Methodist friends, al- 
though they invite all who, in their own judg- 



204 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

ment, are Christians, still testify in their Book 
of Discipline that they will admit no one to the 
Lord's table among them who is guilty of any 
practice for which they would exclude a member 
— a declaration in itself very wise and proper, 
but involving fully the principle of church con- 
trol over the Table. Few Methodists will care 
to affirm that their church would not exclude 
from her membership any person who might 
actively denounce her doctrines as untrue, or 
her practices as unscriptural. If, for example, 
a member of that church should actively teach 
that the doctrine of the Church is false in re- 
spect to falling from grace, he would speedily be 
excluded. Or if he should teach vigorously that 
sprinkling and infant baptism are unscriptural 
and wrong, that they are inventions of men and 
ought to be put away as no baptism at all, and 
that all his brethren who are not immersed on a 
profession of faith are unbaptized, he would be 
promptly expelled from the church. And yet 
in all that he would be doing just what honest 
Baptists are doing all the time. And the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church says, in an official way, 
in her Discipline, that she will admit no one to 
the Lord's table who is guilty of any practice 
for which she would exclude one of her own 
members. I submit, therefore, with all due def- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 205 

erence, that the Methodist Episcopal Church is 
a close communion Church. If you say she is 
open communion, I admit it. The fact is, judged 
by her own official standards, she is both close 
communion and open communion, having close 
communion principles, but open communion prac- 
tices. 

Open communion is a modern thing alto- 
gether, without warrant in the word of God. 
There is not one solitary example or precept for 
it in the Scriptures. They are entirely silent 
about it — as a thing never heard of in that age. 
And the early history of the Church gives it no 
support. On the contrary, the explicit testimony 
of Justin Martyr, about the middle of the sec- 
ond century, shows that only baptized believers 
were then permitted to partake of the sacred 
Supper. Pie says, speaking of the Lord's Sup- 
per: "This food is called Eucharist, of which 
it is lawful for no other person to partake than 
one who believes what we teach to be true, and 
who has been bathed in the bath for the remis- 
sion of sins, and unto regeneration, and who so 
lives, as Christ enjoins." 

The catechism of the Church in Geneva, writ- 
ten by Calvin, embodies the universal view and 
practice of all churches, from the apostolic age 
to very recent times, with reference to the rela- 



206 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

tion of baptism and the Supper. It says: "Is 
it enough to receive both (the sacraments) once 
in a lifetime?" " It is enough so to receive bap- 
tism, which may not be repeated. It is different 
with the Supper." "What is the difference?" 
"By baptism the Lord adopts us, and brings us 
into his Church, so as thereafter to regard us as 
a part of his household. After he has admitted 
us among the number of his people, he testifies 
by the Supper that he takes a continual interest 
in nourishing us." 

Open communion has no support from sound 
reason. The Lord's Supper is intended to com- 
memorate his death, not to manifest our Chris- 
tian fellowship one with another. "For as often 
as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye 
proclaim the Lord's death till he come." And 
Christ himself says, ' ' This do in remembrance 
of me." 

But suppose we grant for a moment all that 
the advocates of open communion claim, viz.: 
that the Supper is an act of Christian fellowship, 
i. e. y that in eating the Supper together, Chris- 
tians express their fellowship one with another 
as Christians. It follows that each one who eats 
at that table thereby indorses all the rest who 
eat with him as Christians, for an act expressive 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 207 

of Christian fellowship for a person means an 
indorsement of that person as a Christian. 

Are such indorsements to be given by Chris- 
tian people carelessly? Are they to be scattered 
about promiscuously? Are they to be handed 
out generously to all who come along? Is there 
no responsibility incurred by an indiscriminate 
Christian fellowship? What would we think of 
a business man who would continually give cer- 
tificates of character and financial responsibility 
to every man who would apply, on the mere 
affirmation of the applicant, that he was honest 
and responsible ? Would we regard him as dis- 
creet? Would we deem him a safe and prudent 
man ? Would we regard his certificates as val- 
uable evidences of character and financial stand- 
ing? No; we would think such a procedure 
either very wicked, or very foolish, or both — 
and very justly, too. And we would laugh at 
such certificates until the meanest beggar would 
be ashamed to take one. And yet our open 
communion friends, on their own showing, are 
scattering broadcast their certificates of Christian 
character quite as recklessly. They fellowship 
all who come, and invite all to come who desire 
to — putting the sacred Supper out in the street 
practically, at the mercy of every mendacious 
tramp. And then, when the motley crowd of 



208 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

good, bad and indifferent are gathered about, 
they proceed to express Christian fellowship with 
them, without the slightest evidence that they 
are all Christians. Is that wise? Is it prudent? 
Is it honorable ? Is it reasonable ? Look over 
the company of communicants. Yonder are 
half a dozen strangers. No one knows them. 
They may be good Christians, but they bring 
no evidence of it. For aught any one knows, 
they may be the basest of base hypocrites, yet 
a whole church proceeds to fellowship them as 
Christians. Can anything be more unreason- 
able? If those strangers eat and drink unworth- 
ily, and therefore to their own condemnation, 
they can justly plead that the church tempted 
them. If they prove utterly unworthy of con- 
fidence, there is no redress for the community 
or the church. They can present themselves at 
the Lord's table at the next communion season, 
and receive the full Christian fellowship of the 
very church whose confidence they have grossly 
abused; and, on open communion principles, 
there is no help for it. Is that reasonable ? 

But this is not the worst of it. Open com- 
munion practices break down all barriers and 
neutralize all church discipline. A member of 
the church proves himself a very bad man. The 
church promptly expels him from her member- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 2CX) 

ship — publicly withdraws the hand of fellowship, 
but at the next communion season that bad man 
presents himself at the Lord's table, in that same 
church, and the whole church expresses its Chris- 
tian fellowship with him by eating- and drinking 
with him. Is that reasonable? Does it tend 
to promote the purity of the church ? Does it cul- 
tivate truthfulness and integrity in the church ? 
Is it likely to make acts of discipline effective ? 
And yet it is an inseparable part of the actual 
working of open communion. 

If the act of partaking of the Lord's Supper 
is really expressive of Christian fellowship, then 
reason dictates the greatest caution in respect to 
our associates at the sacred table, lest we express 
Christian fellowship for those who are not Chris- 
tians, and so bring reproach on the name of 
Christ. 

More,real Christian fellowship can not exist in 
the absence of evidence of Christian character. 
In law, a man is deemed innocent until proven 
guilty, and in business a man is esteemed honest 
(yet with great caution) until proven dishonest. 
But in religion a man is not to be regarded as 
a Christian in the absence of satisfactory evi- 
dence. The mass of men are not Christians, 
and the drift of human nature is not in that 
direction. A stranger presents himself at the 
14 



2IO BEHIND THE SCENES. 

Lord's table. That fact, of itself, does not es- 
tablish his character as a Christian. For aught 
we know he may be a bad man. Certainly we 
do not know, with any reasonable degree of cer- 
tainty, that he is a true Christian. How, then, 
can we honestly express Christian fellowship with 
him ? We do not know his character, and there- 
fore we do not and can not fellowship him as a 
Christian. If, then, we proceed to express Chris- 
tian fellowship with him, we express that which 
does not exist, and our communion is the solemn 
enactment of a falsehood. If, then, the open 
communion view be the true one, and the act of 
eating the Lord's Supper with others is an ex- 
pression of Christian fellowship with them, our 
only safety is to eat that Supper only with such 
persons as we thoroughly know and fully esteem 
as real Christians. For with such persons only 
can we have true, full Christian fellowship. It 
follows inevitably that our open communion 
friends are by their own principles reduced to 
this very remarkable dilemma — that they must 
choose between expressing a Christian fellow- 
ship which does not exist, or resort to the most 
rigid measures to restrict the expression of fel- 
lowship within due limits, so that the expression 
of fellowship shall not exceed the actual fellow- 
ship. But this compels a resort to the sternest 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 211 

sort of restricted communion as the only means 
of escape from bearing false witness at the table 
of our Lord. . A system whose principles are so 
evidently, necessarily and fatally at war with its 
practices, can not be true. 

The Scriptures plainly make baptism the first 
duty of the believer, whence it follows that it 
must precede the Supper. That is the order 
enjoined by our Lord (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) in 
the great commission: "Go ye therefore, and 
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things what- 
soever I have commanded you. " Teaching, bap- 
tizing, training — that is the divine order. And 
the inspired apostles so understood it, observing 
it in all their work. On the day of Pentecost 
they first preached the Word, then baptized those 
who believed, then broke bread. And this di- 
vine order is the sum total of close communion 
in Baptist Churches. Adherence to the law of 
Christ, as illustrated in the work of his apostles, 
is the head and front of our offending. 

But what can we do about it? We must obey 
Christ and observe his ordinances as he instituted 
them, even though we be traduced fcr so doing. 
We are not separatists. We make no laws about 
either ordinance. We simply obey Christ We 



212 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

want our brethren to do the same thing, and be 
one with us in doing as Christ directs. Isn't that 
fair? We ask no advantage, claim no superior- 
ity, assert no authority, but beg our brethren to 
obey our common Lord. 

If they refuse to do it, and go off and set up 
other laws and contrary usages, we can not help 
it. We put up no bars, create no tests, and 
compel no divisions. Others go away and set 
up new tests, and establish new practices, and 
then ask us to put their new tests and new prac- 
tices on a par with the old ones instituted by the 
Master; and because we can not do that, they 
call us hard names, brand us as bigots, and charge 
.us with close communion. Is it bigotry to obey 
Christ? Is it wicked to observe his ordinances 
as he delivered them ? Is it close communion 
to adhere to the order instituted by our Lord? 
Who are excluded by it? those who observe it? 
No! only those who prefer their own way to 
Christ's way. Our churches are open to all Chris- 
tians who are willing to come into the Church in 
Christ's way. They can come in exactly as we 
did — in Christ's way. And the Lord's table 
among us is open to them on precisely the same 
terms as to ourselves ; they can come to it in 
Christ's way just as freely as we can. 

And yet they say we exclude them. It is a 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 213 

mistake; they exclude themselves. We show 
them the law of Christ, and they refuse to obey 
it, and go off and set up for themselves. Is that 
our fault? Must we give up Christ's way, and 
adopt their way, to win them back? We could 
not succeed, if we were willing to try it. Some- 
body would invent some other new way, and 
many would accept it, and the divisions and dis- 
cords would constantly multiply. 

But we dare not do it. We must obey Christ, 
for he is King in Zion, and he alone. We love 
our brethren much, but we love Christ more. 
We dread their harsh, bitter, unjust words, for 
they hurt ; but we dread the displeasure of our 
King more. So we will keep on in the old paths, 
ever holding out the torch of truth, and the olive 
branch of peace, in the name of Christ. 



214 BEHIND THE SCENES. 



NUMBER XIV. 



"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth 
them, he it is that loveth me." . . . "If a 
man love me, he will keep my words." . . . 
"Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I 
command you." . . . "He that lovethme not, 
keepeth not my sayings. " — -Jesus. 

With these tender but decisive words of the 
Master before me, I could not do less than test 
my pedobaptist practices by his words. 

Doing that as fairly and as impartially as I 
could, I was obliged to give them up, as oppos- 
ed to his commandments, contrary to his exam- 
ple, and subversive of his life-giving words. This 
was not an easy thing for me to do, for I loved 
my pedobaptist brethren very dearly, and my 
love was evidently reciprocated by them; but 
when the crucial test came, my sorrowing heart 
was made glad by the discovery that, much as 
I loved them, I loved the Master more. I make 
no boast ; only by grace I am what I am. If I 
braved loss for his sake, it was because his love 
impelled me. If I attained to definite and firm 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 215 

convictions of scriptural truth, it is because his 
words are definite and firm, and easily under- 
stood by the earnest and prayerful seeker after 
truth. But I was not alone in these things. In 
those dark and trying hours there was one by 
my side who is yet the light and solace of my 
life, who, by her faith in God, her love of Christ, 
and her keen, intuitive perceptions of his truth, 
was to me a tower of strength — my quiet, retir- 
ing, but resolute and self-sacrificing wife, whose 
heroic counsel has ever been, Dare to do right, 
no matter what it may cost. 

These sketches are, as their title imports, from 
real life. There is neither fancy nor fiction about 
them. The incidents narrated and the conver- 
sations detailed actually occurred. ' 'With malice 
toward none," but "charity toward all," I have 
herein related a few of the many things entering 
into my experiences in the study of baptism, in 
the hope that the relation may prove serviceable 
to those who desire to know and do the truth, 
suppressing only the names of my interlocutors, 
to whom I would not knowingly do aught of 
harm. They are brethren of many noble quali- 
ties. Some of them have entered into their rest, 
while others still labor in hope, earnestly looking 
forward to refreshment and reward. With their 
virtues and graces I have no controversy; I com- 



2l6 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

bat only their errors. As noble men I revere 
them ; as Christians I love them ; as errorists I 
oppose them. I honor their virtues, emulate 
their graces, and seek to correct their errors. 
Nor do I, in this, pretend that I am infallible, 
or free from error. "To err is human," and 
many years of close observation have taught me 
that he is doomed to disappointment who seeks 
perfection beneath the stars. But of all types of 
imperfection, that is the most censurable which 
is content with itself, and cherishes its own er- 
rors, or the errors of others, excusing itself be- 
cause no mortal, with undimmed eye, discerns 
perfectly all parts of the absolute truth. 

Grant that I am in error in many things, as 
almost certainly I am; then let those who per- 
ceive my errors teach me the truth, and as they 
verify it by the divine Word, I will gladly re- 
ceive it, and thank them for their kind offices. 
It is in this spirit that I have written these sketch- 
es. I love my pedobaptist brethren as Christian 
brethren — Christian and beloved — but in error 
in a matter of vast importance, and far-reaching 
in its consequences. I believe they love the 
truth, and I would help them to perceive it by 
clearing away some, at least, of the fogs error 
has exhaled about it. Immersion of adults is as 
impotent to make men Christians as is the sprink- 



BEHIND THE SCENES. 217 

ling of infants; but immersion is a duty enjoined 
by our Lord himself upon those who believe in 
him, while sprinkling — infant and adult — is an 
invention of men which actually obscures many 
portions of the divine Word, and in the case of 
millions prevents obedience to the plain com- 
mandment of Christ. 

I do not say, I dare not say, that immersion 
is essential to salvation; but I do say, on the 
authority of the Lord himself, that obedience 
to his commandments, at least so far as the im- 
port of those commandments can be perceived, 
is indispensable to honest, genuine discipleship, 
and that he only who is willing to render prompt 
and cheerful obedience to the words of Christ in 
all things, so far as their meaning can be discov- 
ered, is entitled to call himself a Christian, or to 
demand recognition of his Christian character 
from others. 

I ?.m not a Baptist because I love much water 
rather than little, but because Jesus commands 
immersion instead of sprinkling, and the immer- 
sion of those who believe instead of unconscious 
babes, and his commandments are the supreme 
law of my life. With me it is not a question 
of water, nor a question of getting to heaven, 
but a question of loyalty to Christ and of fitness 



2l8 BEHIND THE SCENES. 

for heaven, and in this I do not differ from the 
great mass of my Baptist brethren everywhere. 

If any one says, ' ' It is a matter of indifferency, 
since we can get to heaven without scriptural 
baptism," I reply: Is the desire and will of 
your Master of so little consequence to you? 
Do you not care whether you obey him or not? 
If you do not, then I fear you love him not, 
since he says: "If a man love me, he will keep 
my words." 

Rest assured, if you do not care to obey Christ, 
you really do not love him,, since he says: " He 
that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings." 
Does that describe you? If so, heaven would 
prove but an irksome prison, should you chance 
somehow to get there. Beware ! there is danger 
in such indifferency. 

But I am confident there are many thousands 
of pedobaptists who honestly and earnestly de- 
sire to know the truth about these matters, and 
who will gladly welcome aid, no matter whence 
it may come, if only it contributes to open to 
them the temple of truth. 

To such I send forth these brief sketches, 
with an earnest prayer that their mission of love 
may not prove fruitless. 

And if, by and by, I am permitted to know 
that they have been of use in guiding earnest 



BEHIND THE SCENES. . 2IO, 

souls into the light, and in leading them to put 
away the inventions of men, and to cherish and 
observe the ordinances of Christ in their sim- 
plicity and purity, I will rejoice that I have not 
suffered and studied and written in vain. 

And may grace, mercy and peace, from God 
the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord, rest upon 
all readers of these sketches for the Master's 
sake. 

THE END. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 456 184 9 



vffy&M 


§ 


V&SZ4Z2Z& 


!i 


ygjifflsgft 


IX 


Wmk 




*3$ffik 








i '•■ 




mi 
mm 


j 




1 



Wmmm 



